Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Tanner's Brook

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Hampshire River Board expects to complete the scheme to improve Tanner's Brook over the entire watercourse; and when the last normal maintenance on the watercourse was carried out within the county borough of Southampton.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I understand that the river board intends to complete the final stage of the comprehensive scheme by 1965. Normal maintenance within the county borough of Southampton is carried out twice yearly, the last occasion being this summer.

Mr. Howard: Is my hon. Friend aware that serious flooding has taken place this autumn, and will he take steps to safeguard the properties of my constituents in the Millbrook area of Southampton by having a further survey made to see what can be done to remove the surplus water from their gardens and properties?

Mr. Vane: As I expect my hon. Friend knows, the river board does pay attention to the maintenance of this watercourse. The preliminary survey has now been completed for more serious work, and a recorder has been installed to gauge the flow of water. As to the reasons of the recent floods, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that the board reports that amongst the rubbish removed from the bed of the watercourse were a number of iron bedsteads, perambulators, etc., no doubt the property of his constituents.

Mr. Howard: In view of the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he proposes to make in the policy set out in Command Paper No. 1453 for the fishing industry, in view of the representations made to him by the British Trawler Federation and other bodies.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): No changes have been made in the broad policy set out in Command Paper 1453 and incorporated in the Bill now before the House. There have been some changes in the details of implementing it, and these are set out in an exchange of letters with representatives of the trawler owners which was published on 3rd November, and a copy of which I am having placed in the Library.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those in the industry are grateful for the way in which he received their representations and are pleased that an agreed solution has been reached?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Small Holdings

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the small holdings administered by public authorities fell vacant during the last year; whether this percentage is increasing or decreasing; and what is now the average length of tenure for each tenant.

Mr. Vane: About 5½ per cent. of the small holdings administered by public authorities fell vacant in the year to 31st March, 1961. Since 1954, this percentage has fluctuated between 5 and 6 per cent. The average length of a smallholder's tenure is estimated at rather more than twenty years.

Mr. Digby: Is it not clear that this turnover is not very satisfactory if we are to regard small holdings as a very useful ladder for farm workers? Will


not my hon. Friend look into this again and review the Government's smallholding policy to see whether more cannot be done to provide this very much needed ladder for more farm workers who wish to become farmers?

Mr. Vane: I think it is wrong to belittle the advantages of this policy. Some 10,000 full-time small holdings have been provided under the post-war Acts. My hon. Friend cannot, of course, have it all ways; when agriculture enjoys stability there is not the same amount of movement on and off farms.

Food Stocks

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much food is stocked in this country which is immune from radioactivity; and how long he estimates that these supplies would feed the people of this country in the event of an emergency.

Mr. Soames: In the event of any emergency likely to occur in peace time, there would, at any given time, be ample stocks of safe food in the country to feed the population.

Mr. Thorpe: Would the Minister include a period of high radioactivity as being synonymous with peace-time conditions?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir, anything we envisage as likely to be created.

Pesticides

Mrs. Bulter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he has had with the Pyrethrum Board with regard to the formulation of safety standards for pesticides used in agriculture.

Mr. Vane: None, Sir. Recommended standards for the safe use of pesticides in agriculture are laid down by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage. These are discussed with the manufacturers who notify their products for examination under the voluntary notification scheme. The Pyrethrum Board has not asked for its products to be examined by the Advisory Committee.

Mrs. Butler: But as increasing use is being made of compounds that are toxic to human beings—and this is substan-

tiated by the I960 Factories Report-is it not really urgent that the Minister should insist on raising the safety standards of pesticides, fungicides and seed dressings, and should also positively encourage the use of non-toxics such as pyrethrum?

Mr. Vane: I am sure that the hon. Lady will know that we are as concerned with this problem as she is. Pyrethrum is amongst the less toxic substances, admittedly, but it is also amongst the less effective. The Pyrethrum Board is carrying out a number of researches and is in touch with our Department. There is certainly no evidence to show that the Board, which is expanding its production, is not finding a useful outlet for all that it can provide. There is, in fact, reference to it in The Timesnewspaper today.

Sir G. Nicholson: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, can he say how soon it will be before there will be a reply to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates in the last Session?

Mr. Vane: My right hon. Friend has that very much in hand, and it will not be very long before my hon. Friend receives a reply.

Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the purpose of this Question is merely concerned with whether this Board can sell its commodities, or, rather, the health of the people arising out of the use of these products?

Mr. Vane: Of course, I understand that it is mainly concerned with the toxic nature of many chemicals that are now in use. On the other hand, there was the implication that, perhaps, there were alternative products available which were less toxic. I wanted to make the point that we were taking notice of what the Board has been able to do.

Price Guarantees

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet estimated whether the cost to the Exchequer of the price guarantees under the Agriculture Acts in the current year to date is running at a higher or lower figure than in 1960; what is the amount of the difference; and which commodities mainly contribute to it.

Mr. Soames: As at 30th September payments under the price arrangements for all commodities in the current financial year were £40 million higher than in the corresponding six months of 1960–61. The commodities mainly contributing to this increase are fat cattle, sheep, cereals and potatoes.

Mr. Bullard: While recognising the need to keep this figure as low as possible, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the figure has not risen very much of recent years and that even in a complete year it may not turn out to be all that much bigger than in the previous year? In the talks in which my right hon. Friend is about to be engaged, will he be slow to abandon a system which has served many interests, not merely farmers and farm workers, but consumers and traders, lest he is absolutely compelled to adopt some other alternative?

Mr. Soames: As to the outcome for the whole year, I cannot forecast, as my hon. Friend appreciates, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that the figure for the first six months is considerably increased on the previous year. As to the second part of his question, I yield to none in my belief in the benefits that have flowed to the country as a whole from the use of our system of agricultural support.

Beef, Mutton and Lamb

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of the low market realisation prices for beef, mutton and lamb this summer.

Mr. Soames: The low prices were the result mainly of heavier marketings of home-produced stock, due in part to the increase in our livestock population and in part to the influence of the weather on the pattern of marketings. There were exceptional circumstances in marketing this summer which will not necessarily be repeated next year.

Mr. Browne: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, would he not consider that it is time to control the importation of these products at the time of high home killing periods? Would he not also consider the encouragement of a meat marketing board for the benefit of both farmer and consumer?

Mr. Soames: Both of my hon. Friend's supplementary questions raise big issues, not least the fact that, with regard to lamb from New Zealand, we have arrangements for the unrestricted free entry for their lamb. In the case of lamb from New Zealand and beef from the Argentine, a long sea passage is involved. Apart from any other aspects of the matter, it would be very difficult from a machinery point of view to implement.

Anti-Dumping Measures

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now consider setting up an interdepartmental committee to examine the need for co-ordinating the food market, for limiting imports and for operating effective anti-dumping measures in the interests of both the British farmer and consumer.

Mr. Soames: The negotiations with the members of the European Economic Community have an obvious bearing on all these issues and what my hon. Friend has in mind is already being examined inter-departmentally in that context. I do not think it would help to set up a separate committee.

Mr. Browne: While I understand that, does my right hon. Friend not consider that now is the time for the responsibility for the control of imports, whether by anti-dumping legislation or straightforward control, to be vested in a committee in his Ministry instead of it being the joint responsibility of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Soames: The anti-dumping legislation to which my hon. Friend refers is, of course, the only piece of legislation on the Statute Book. This covers all the trade of the country, and the responsibility for implementing it must inevitably rest with the President of the Board of Trade.

Icelandic Fishery Limits (Navigational Facilities)

Mr. P. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in order to enable British trawlers off the Icelandic coast to fix their position more accurately and so avoid the difficulties arising from unintentional violations of fishery limits, he will consult with the


Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs regarding an approach to the Icelandic Government with a view to the development of better navigational facilities in that area.

Mr. Soames: There is no doubt of the advantages which would flow from better navigational facilities off the Icelandic coast to help ensure the effectiveness of the Anglo-Icelandic fishery agreement. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the provision of such facilities is a matter for the individual country concerned. We would certainly be pleased to see the facilities improved and I will keep my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the conclusion of the Anglo-Icelandic agreement, six British trawlers have been arrested and heavily fined? Will he do his best to see that better Loran receivers are available or a Decca chain is set up in Iceland?

Mr. Soames: The navigational change to which my hon. Friend refers was answered in my original reply. Although I agree that this would be beneficial to the implementation of this agreement from both the Icelandic and our own points of view, it must be for the Icelandic Government to take a decision as to whether or not they should put one up.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister not aware that this might be extended further; that two Scottish vessels where convictions took place had these convictions quashed by the appeal court, arising from incidents at the Faroes, and, in view of these continual incidents in these grounds, will the Minister take the initiative about securing what has been asked for by his hon. Friend, since it is beneficial to the country and to our fishermen?

Mr. Soames: The question concerned Iceland and not the Faroes, although I had this very much in mind.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many outbreaks of fowl pest have been confirmed in Norfolk during the past three months; how this number compares with outbreaks in previous years; and what new measures are proposed to reduce the outbreaks of this disease;
(2) how much has been paid in compensation in Norfolk in respect of fowl pest during the past three months; and what is the largest amount paid to any one breeder during the same period.

Mr. Vane: In Norfolk during the three months ended 31st October there were 59 outbreaks of fowl pest. The comparable figures for the three previous years are 87, 15 and 38 outbreaks. Compensation in the last three months has been assessed at £664,000, about half of which is payable to one breeder, but the amount is subject to arbitration. The control measures to support the present slaughter policy are being enforced vigorously and the hon. Member will have noticed that a committee of the industry is helping us to give the widest publicity to preventive measures and to symptoms of the disease. The Government set up a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold Plant to review the arrangements for fowl pest. This is a very considerable and complex problem. The committee are well aware of our wish that the report should be made as soon as possible and we hope that it will be by the end of the year.

Mr. Hilton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is a very serious matter that we should have these outbreaks of fowl pest so frequently? They are very costly to the breeders and to the Government, who must foot the bill and pay the compensation. Many people in the poultry industry are of the opinion that the Government are not spending nearly enough money on research into the causes of this dreadful disease, and will the Parliamentary Secretary see that more money is provided for this purpose? Regarding compensation, I agree that breeders must be compensated, but is there any reason why workers who lose their jobs as a result of these outbreaks should not also be compensated? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the whole question of assessing and paying compensation which many people consider is open to serious criticism and is a subject which has not been revised in recent years?

Mr. Vane: On the first Question, there is no doubt whatever that this is a line of research which has great claims upon us. With regard to compensation to workers, where the employer receives


compensation for the loss of healthy birds, then I think it is up to him, if he considers it right and proper, to share it with those who may have a claim on him. As to the methods of assessment, that is one of the questions on which we are hoping this committee will be able to help us when it has completed its very arduous work and we receive its report, which we hope will be shortly.

Mr. Peart: Would the Parliamentary Secretary give details of the amount of money spent on research last year, how he thinks it will compare with the proposed figure for this year, and whether there is to be an increase?

Mr. Vane: I do not have the figure with me. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall be pleased to supply the information.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid in compensation for birds destroyed on account of fowl pest during 1961, to the latest convenient date; and how many of the beneficiaries have benefited a second or third time.

Mr. Vane: Poultry and hatching eggs destroyed this year up to 31st October were valued at £2,795,000. Some of these valuations are subject to arbitration. As to the second part of the Question, I regret that this information is not available and could not be provided without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take into account that there is widespread concern about these claims for fowl pest, especially where they recur, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter so that any suspicion of fraud may be removed?

Mr. Vane: The last thing we want is any suspicion of fraud to remain. The Government do not easily part with money without good reason being shown, and, although I do not say that abuse has never happened, I am certain that it does not occur in the general run.

Pig Industry

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps are now being taken to stabilise the British pig industry and at

the same time limit imports of foreign bacon.

Mr. Soames: The best prospect for stability for the pig industry lies in a steady and reasonable level in the size of the national pig herd. The arrangements made at the last Annual Review were designed to contribute to this, in particular by the introduction of flexible guarantee and the assurance that the basic guarantee price would not be reduced at the 1962 Annual Review.
As a result of an application for the imposition of a countervailing duty on bacon imports from the Irish Republic, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is examining whether action under anti-dumping legislation could be justified.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent weeks some pig producers have had difficulty in getting the purchasing agencies to accept their products? Does he think it right that countries which are not in E.F.T.A. or even connected with the Common Market should be allowed to dump their bacon or pig meat here as they please?

Mr. Soames: I cannot refer to the question of dumping while it is being considered as the result of an antidumping application. It is sub judiceand, therefore, I cannot go into the matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he endorses the statement of policy which was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his constituency the other day in so far as the question of pig marketing in the future is concerned with the Common Market countries? Is the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend is on record as having said that he believes that we must try to encourage Holland and Denmark to send more pigs to Germany and France? Is that his policy too?

Mr. Soames: As to what my right hon. Friend meant in that context, there is no doubt that with Denmark outside the Common Market area and with the tariffs that exist between the Common Market area and those outside it, this militates against the export of bacon and pig meat in general from Denmark


into countries which are in the Common Market area. This situation would not exist were Denmark in the Common Market.

French-type Fishing Gear

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he is aware of the change by North Sea fishermen to French-type fishing gear; and if he will make a statement on the extent of this, the industrial situation thus created and the steps he is taking to make French-type gear available at reasonable prices to fishermen who need it.

Mr. Vane: Financial help has been given through the White Fish Authority to trials of French gear for middle-water vessels, the results of which will be made available to the industry. I am not aware of any general change to this type of gear. The last part of the hon. and learned Member's Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the increased efficiency of the French type of gear and its extensive use at present by French fishing boats in the North Sea, will the Minister take steps to see that British fishermen are not deprived of its use by either a shortage or a high price of gear? Would he see that funds are provided to enable British fishermen to compete on equal terms with French fishermen?

Mr. Vane: I have just told the hon. and learned Gentleman that trials are now taking place, the cost of which has been shared between the Government, the White Fish Authority and the owners concerned. We had better wait and see the result of these trials before we come to any conclusions.

Radioactivity (Fish)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what investigation he has carried out into the possibilities of radioactive fall-out affecting fish.

Mr. Soames: My Department has for some years investigated the effect of radioactivity on fish and the results show that there is no possibility of fish being affected by present levels of radioactive fall-out.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister studied the effect of the tests in the Pacific, after which the Japanese Government were compelled to destroy many thousands of tons of fish? Does he not think there is a possibility of risk occurring if there is an increase in fall-out?

Mr. Soames: All I can say is that the scientific advice given to us at present is that with the present and foreseen levels of fall-out, there is no possibility —I put it as high as that—of fish being affected by it in waters in which our boats fish.

Mr. Manuel: Could the Minister give the House any information as to what level of fall-out would contaminate fish in the affected areas, with particular reference to those fish which travel to our inland and coastal waters, such as salmon and sea trout? Many thousands of these fish are caught annually in this country and we would need to be certain that they are not affected. What level of fall-out would affect them?

Mr Soames: This is a serious question. I would be grateful if a Question were put down, when I would certainly give an answer to it.

Charollais Cattle

Mr. Mackie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now allow an import of Charollais females in order to establish the breed in this country.

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The object of the current importation of Charollais bulls from France is to see whether they have anything to offer in improving the quality of beef from our dairy herd. The question of establishing the breed will have to be considered when we have seen the results of this trial.

Mr. Mackie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation has altered considerably since the Minister took his decision to import bulls only? Is he aware that the countries which were reputed to be afraid of the entry of these cattle have now decided that they want them? I refer to Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Australia. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that we are losing a volume of exports by being behind in the introduction of


these cattle? The Minister must be aware that we are tops in breeding cattle in this country and in improving breeds. Would he not reconsider the whole situation so that we can get ahead and get these admirable cattle into our country?

Mr. Soames: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member about what this country has to offer in the breeding of livestock. The Terrington Committee went into this matter in great detail and obtained a great amount of knowledge on the subject. That Committee has advised that we should have this pilot scheme to see what could be offered, and I think this is the right policy before we decide to import any more.

Mr. Mackie: As I am not satisfied with that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sausages (Meat Content)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when a standard will be laid down for the meat content of sausages.

Mr. Vane: It is not my right hon. Friend's intention to lay down a standard for the meat content of sausages.

Mrs. Slater: Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that every local authority is faced with the grave problem of not being able to bring a case against any offender who has produced sausages with a low meat content? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this leaves the housewife at the mercy of people who are prepared to make sausages with a low meat content; and further, in view of the high consumption of sausages in this House, does he not think that there should be some such standard?

Mr. Vane: This whole question was inquired into some time ago, as the hon. Lady knows, and my right hon. Friend's predecessor, in answer to a Question, showed how extremely difficult it was to lay down standards which were enforceable. There is really very little purpose in laying down standards which are not enforceable. As to the purchase of sausages, I should have thought that the average woman, or man for that matter, was as good a judge of sausages in the shops, and there are so many good

sausages on the market that I do not see why anybody need buy bad sausages a second time.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does my hon. Friend recall that the late Lord Crookshank said that Socialist sausages were more like cream buns than sausages?

Dried Milk

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what Government stocks of dried milk are at present held; and what action he is taking to increase those stocks.

Mr. Soames: As hon. Members will know, the Government have already arranged for adequate supplies of evaporated and dried processed milk to be available for children up to one year old if contamination from radio-iodine should rise to a level at which they might be exposed to risk from drinking fresh milk.

Mr. Lipton: Would it help a potential enemy if the Government gave some facts and figures to satisfy the British public, and in particular mothers, that adequate arrangements are being made for stocking and distributing this dried milk? Or is this to be another dark secret to cover up some more deficiencies in our defence policy, of which unfortunately we have had too many examples lately?

Mr. Soames: I will not agree for a moment that there is any doubt whatever in the minds of the public at large that the Government have made ample arrangements to ensure that should the need arise the supplies will be available.

Mr. Thorpe: Can the right hon. Gentleman go into a little more detail? For how long are the Government prepared to feed people in this country at a time of radioactive emergency? May we know what sort of stocks we have, how long they will last, what other food stocks we can get, and what sort of studies the Government are making?

Mr. Soames: From the point of view of a temporary danger on account of radio-iodine, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has a very short active life, there is no difficulty whatever. The only point at issue concerns milk. The radio-iodine has a short life and there will be no difficulty whatever in providing


the necessary amount of dried or processed milk to take the place of liquid milk for those who might suffer were the levels to rise to an unacceptable limit. As regards the longer-term situation in relation to strontium-90 fall-out, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this happens many months later, and we shall be guided by the scientists as to the need and the sort of preventive measures we shall have to take where stockpiling in the interim is concerned. Whatever is necessary will be done.

Radioactive Substances

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new advice he proposes to circulate to farmers about precautions to be taken against radioactive substances likely to damage crops and contaminate milk.

Mr. Soames: I do not consider that at the moment there is a need to give any special advice to farmers.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether, when the advice he has already given has been carried out and it is discovered that a farmer has radio-iodine in the milk, the farmer will be compensated if the Government decide that the milk must not be used for public consumption?

Mr. Soames: This is all based upon the premise, with which the hon. Gentleman started his supplementary question, about whether the advice that I have given has been followed. In fact, it has not been necessary to give any advice to farmers in this respect.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of this series of Questions and Answers, and particularly in view of the subsequent replies which the right hon. Gentleman has given, will he take this opportunity to confirm what was said by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence the other day, that nothing in the existing situation need give anyone any present anxiety?

Mr. Soames: Where foodstuffs are concerned, that is correct.

Mr. P. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say that, while very careful watch is being kept on the contamination of milk, there is

in the meantime no danger whatever in drinking milk and, therefore, people should not buy less of it?

Mr. Soames: I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There is no reason whatever why people should not drink all the milk that they wish, and more if they will.

HOLY LOCH DEMONSTRATORS (SENTENCES)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Advocate what consideration he gave to the matter before it was decided to send the persons concerned in the recent anti-Polaris demonstrations at the Holy Loch for trial to the sheriff court.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): I considered carefully in May of this year what action should be taken in relation to breaches of the peace arising out of demonstrations of this type. I decided that in such cases, where the evidence was sufficient, proceedings should be taken in the sheriff court in Dunoon, and gave instructions accordingly.

Mr. Rankin: Now that we have unmasked the real villain in this matter, did the Lord Advocate realise that, in deciding to send these cases for trial to the sheriff court, he was taking a step which was bound to cause heavier sentences to be inflicted than the nature of the offences warranted?

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. The maximum fine in the justice of the peace court is £10 and in the sheriff court it is £25 for offences of this sort, but it is for the court to decide in any particular case what sentence should be inflicted.

Mr. Willis: What were the reasons why the Lord Advocate considered it so very much more serious to sit down on Ardnadam Pier than in Sauchiehall Street or Princes Street?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Or Trafalgar Square?

The Lord Advocate: And in Trafalgar Square. The seriousness of the offences arose from a number of factors, including the numbers involved, the mass obstruction of the road concerned, and the deliberate manner in which the law was broken.

Mr. Ross: Does not that mean that the Lord Advocate had made up his mind 1o have cases dealt with thus before the offences took place?

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that legal comparisons can now be made, after the event, will the Lord Advocate look at some of the sentences which were imposed in England for similar offences and consider again the decisions in this court?

The Lord Advocate: The Act under which people were charged for offences in Trafalgar Square does not apply in Scotland. I cannot prosecute people in Scotland under an Act which applies to England. As regards what was said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I did not say that I had decided beforehand what to do. What happened, in fact, was this. On 24th May this year, after the Whitsun demonstrations, having received a report from the procurator fiscal in regard to those, I decided that the persons concerned should be charged in the sheriff court at Dunoon. I did that after considering the procurator fiscal's report. At the same time, I instructed him that, in future, if the evidence was sufficient, he should proceed accordingly in similar cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Home Confinement Grant

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is satisfied with present arrangements whereby part or whole of a home confinement grant may be stopped if, in the opinion of the medical advisers concerned, it becomes desirable during the ten days that part of that period should be spent in hospital although the confinement was originally registered as domiciliary; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into this problem.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The home confinement grant is a single payment of £6 for confinements at home. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that we have gone as far as we reasonably can

in also treating certain confinements in National Health Service hospitals as though they had taken place at home. These are cases where the mother has made arrangements to have her baby at home but has had to be admitted to hospital as an emergency case before the baby was born. Admission to hospital after the birth does not deprive the mother of this grant.

Mr. Snow: If I understand the hon. Lady's answer correctly, she stands on the argument that cases will arise where the mother, although she was intending to have her baby at home, has to go to hospital for a few days, and she will not be given any form of grant. Does not this create hardship in the sense that the mother and the family will have involved themselves in expenditure in anticipation of the baby being delivered at home? As this is not fair or equitable, I appeal to the hon. Lady to consider the matter again.

Mrs. Thatcher: The purpose of the grant is to induce people to make arrangements to have the confinement at home and for the baby to be born at home. My right hon. Friend knows that there are cases where women have to be admitted to hospital. Special arrangements are made for them to receive the home confinement giant, notwithstanding the fact that the baby is born in hospital, because they have incurred expenditure; but a line has to be drawn somewhere and, broadly speaking, it is drawn at a maximum of five days.

Mr. Snow: Will the hon. Lady take steps to ensure that such provision as she has now declared is made known to families, and will she again look into the matter to see whether she can go further in this matter, because cases of hardship have been drawn to my attention?

Mrs. Thatcher: The full details of emergency cases which still rank for home confinement grants are given in the leaflet N.I. 17A on Maternity Benefits.

Tribunals and Medical Boards (Attendance Allowance)

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the maximum allowance under his


regulations for loss of earnings to a person called before a local tribunal or medical board under the National Insurance Acts.

Mrs. Thatcher: Forty shillings a day.

Mr. Hill: Since many of these people attending tribunals suffer loss of wages, will the hon. Lady put it to her right hon. Friend that it is time the question was reconsidered and an advance made on what is paid now?

Mrs. Thatcher: The amounts payable as compensation for loss of remunerative time, which are common to committees and tribunals associated with Government Departments, are laid down by the Treasury, and questions about the scales are for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Tours

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will take steps to ensure that companies organizing inclusive air tours name the air operator transporting their clients and the type of aircraft to be used.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): The Air Transport Licensing Board tells me that it is its intention as soon as practicable to make it a condition of inclusive tour licences that these particulars should always be advertised.

Mr. Rankin: Do I take it from that Answer that the Licensing Board will have the full support of the Minister of Aviation in carrying out this step?

Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir.

Accidents

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will list for each year since 1952 the number of passengers killed in accidents on air journeys, giving separate figures for scheduled and non-

scheduled flights of the independent air lines, and the number of passenger miles flown, together with comparable figures for the Corporations.

Mr. Woodhouse: As the Answer includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mason: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether the list proves that there is a higher accident rate on the independent airlines than on the Corporations and a far higher accident rate on non-scheduled services, such as chartered operations, on the independent airlines than on the Corporations? If that is so, will he take further steps to have more inspections made of the independent airline companies and their aircraft and the facilities of these companies, with a view to raising the safety standards generally?

Mr. Woodhouse: As the Answer contains a lot of figures, and as comparisons based exclusively on those figures might be misleading—in certain respects they are unavoidably incomplete—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should study the figures before asking further questions.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us the fullest possible particulars, because, whether it is a question of chartered flights against scheduled flights or independent airlines against the Corporations, these are vary important questions? There is a great deal of public anxiety in this matter. We cannot come to a fair assessment unless we have the fullest possible figures. We therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to give in this answer and subsequent answers very much fuller figures than have been available up to now.

Mr. Woodhouse: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the public anxiety in this matter and he shares it, as I have said before. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the figures which will be published will be the fullest that can be produced.

Following is the Answer:


TABLE 1


SCHEDULED PASSENGER CARRYING PUBLIC TRANSPORT FLIGHTS BY UNITED KINGDOM OPERATORS





Corporations
Independent Companies


Calendar Year
Passengers killed
Passenger miles flown (millions)
Passengers killed
Passenger miles flown (millions)


1952
…
…
—
1,206·4
—
26·6


1953
…
…
61
1,379·9
—
52·5


1954
…
…
84
1,432·4
—
80·0


1955
…
…
13
1,681·5
—
119·9


1956
…
…
29
1,955·2
—
148·8


1957
…
…
17
2,200·7
38
174·0


1958
…
…
26
2,378·2
—
186·5


1959
…
…
—
3,055·5
—
214·6


1960
…
…
—
3,691·7
—
272·3

TABLE 2


NON-SCHEDULED PASSENGER CARRYING PUBLIC TRANSPORT FLIGHTS BY UNITED KINGDOM OPERATORS


Financial Year*
British Overseas Airways Corporation†
Independent Companies‡





Passengers killed
Passenger miles flown (millions)
Passengers killed
Passenger miles flown (millions)


1952–53
…
…
—
35·1
33 (+6 non-B.I.A.T.A.)
229·2


1953–54
…
…
—
56·9
—
401·8


1954–55
…
…
—
31·3
—
492·2


1955–56
…
…
—
50·2
47
677·5


1956–;57
…
…
—
54·4
33
717·8


1957–58
…
…
—
91·6
35
596·2


1958–59
…
…
—
98·5
—
672·4


1959–60
…
…
—
112·2
29
616·1


1960–61
…
…
—
355·8
—
875·7


* Such passenger mile figures as are available for non-scheduled flights are for financial years. The Corporation figures are for years ended 31st March; the figures for Independents are for years ended 30th June up to 1958–59 and for years ended 31st March from 1959–60 onwards.


† British European Airways do not maintain records of passenger miles on non-scheduled flights. There were 22 passenger fatalities on British European Airways non-scheduled flights in 1957–58.


‡ The only figures available of passenger miles on non·scheduled flights by independent companies are those published by the British Independent Air Transport Association (B.I.A.T.A.) and the passenger mile figures shown therefore exclude operators not belonging to the Association. For the sake of comparability, passenger fatalities have been confined to those on services of B.I.A.T.A. members except in the one case specially noted.

Air Transport Licensing Board

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Aviation when he proposes to provide adequate and suitable accommodation for the use of the Air Transport Licensing Board.

Mr. Woodhouse: A thorough survey is now being made and my right hon. Friend hopes soon to be able to offer the Board suitable accommodation in a more convenient place.

Mr. Johnson: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. As he knows, not only has the Board had occasion to complain about the inadequacy of the premises, but the many interested parties who have had to attend them suffered inconvenience.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I can assure him that they are appreciated.

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is satisfied that


the Air Transport Licensing Board, when dealing with applications by foreign operators, has adequate power to assure itself that the operator is competent to carry out the tour proposed; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the public in this country is protected if the tours, when licensed, fail to materialise.

Mr. Woodhouse: The Air Transport Licensing Board is concerned only with nights by aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. Permission for flights by foreign registered aircraft is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, and his powers in this connection are adequate.

Mr. Johnson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, although it may be British flights which are the subject of the applications, foreign operators are submitting applications to the Licensing Board? As some concern has been expressed about that, will the hon. Gentleman look further into the position in order to ensure that the British public, when taking part in such flights, are protected in the event of default by a foreign operator?

Mr. Woodhouse: I shall certainly look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. If foreign operators are applying to the Licensing Board, they are applying to the wrong body.

Mr. Mason: Is it possible for independent airlines to register their aircraft overseas and, by so doing, by-pass our regulations?

Mr. Woodhouse: I will look into that point.

London Airport (Car Parking Facilities)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Aviation what proposals he has to improve car parking facilities at London Airport.

Mr. Woodhouse: Tenders have been invited for the design and construction of a multi-storey garage, to be completed in 1963. In addition, the Ministry of Aviation is discussing with several private concerns the possibility of improving and extending the arrangements for parking outside the airport and for ferrying cars to and from the Central Area.

Mr. du Cann: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the clear need to improve such facilities as exist at present at London Airport, which are certainly inadequate—after all, London is the capital of this country, if not of the whole British Commonwealth—will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that this matter will be pressed on with all possible speed and that we shall have better facilities as soon as we possibly can?

Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir; I give that undertaking.

Mr. Strachey: Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary give us some news of the proposals to reorganise the management of London Airport under a public corporation rather than—

Mr. Speaker: He cannot on this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Poliomyelitis

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health what research is being made into the environmental, dietetic and surgical background of poliomyelitis cases in Hull.

Mr. Coulson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will prepare a memorandum on the recent outbreak of poliomyelitis in Hull and the methods adopted to control it.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I understand that the Medical Officer of Health has made extensive investigations and that he will be making his report on them.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that many parents are concerned that so little appears to be said or published about general health precautions against poliomyelitis as distinct from innoculation? In view of the importance of investigating the causes of these outbreaks, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Medical Officer of Health of Hull if, when he publishes his findings, he will consider putting them into simple, non-medical language for the guidance of the general public?

Mr. Powell: This will be a report, in the first instance, to the city council,


but I have no doubt that any lessons arising from it will receive wide publicity and discussion.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the supply of anti-polio vaccines in Leicester and throughout the country.

Mr. Powell: Since August, supplies to Leicester and other authorities have been less than the amounts requested owing to exceptionally heavy demands earlier this year and the failure of a large batch. I have had no request from Leicester for a special allocation.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the statement he is now making (indicates that he has been extremely remiss about the supply of this kind of vaccine? Will he not arrange to have a sufficient supply here to meet any emergency which may arise, in view of the very serious consequences of not being able to provide the appropriate quantity?

Mr. Powell: No, Sir; this vaccine must be regularly ordered and produced. The time-lag is approximately six months. As there was a very large vaccination campaign in the early spring following the evidence of a recurrence of polio, it was inevitable that we should be short of supplies in the autumn.

Sir B. Janner: Does not the Minister realise that in order to avoid this kind of incident recurring in future people should be encouraged to be vaccinated? Is he not prepared to conduct a campaign so that sufficient vaccine will be available to enable this treatment to be given to all people who are likely to be affected in future?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. I promoted such a campaign in the spring of this year, with successful results. The consequence was that 40 per cent. more immunisations took place this year than last year.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that there is a general shortage of anti-polio vaccine throughout Lancashire, including Blackburn, and as there has now been an outbreak of polio in Blackburn, this is causing grave anxiety? Will not the Minister take steps to increase the sources of manufacture of vaccine

in order to insure against a future shortage owing to the failure of one source of supply to pass the tests?

Mr. Powell: With regard to the immediate position in Lancashire, if any local authority in special difficulties will get in touch with my Department, I will see whether I can help.

Reciprocal Arrangements

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Minister of Health with what countries the United Kingdom as made reciprocal arrangements for the provision of medical and hospital services to their respective subjects.

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Health if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing with what foreign Governments he has negotiated free medical services equivalent to the National Health Service for British residents and visitors abroad; and what future steps he intends to take in this regard.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): Besides the arrangements detailed in my right hon. Friend's reply of 6th March to my hon. Friend, the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), an arrangement has been made with West Germany, covering our nationals insured in that country, and their dependants. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has constantly in mind the possibilities of making revised or additional agreements.

Mr. Jones: Are these arrangements working satisfactorily, and are there any prospects of extending these civilised provisions to other countries?

Miss Pitt: The arrangements are working satisfactorily. As I have just said, negotiations—which usually take place through the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance—are constantly in mind.

Mr. du Cann: Does not my hon. Friend think that to make arrangements of this sort is a much better way of dealing with the problem of foreigners coming to the United Kingdom and using our facilities than suggesting, for instance, that we should tighten up controls on the system?


Does she not think, therefore, that the best thing that her Department can possibly do is to ensure that as many of of these reciprocal arrangements as possible are made as quickly as possible?

Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir, but one of the major difficulties is that so few countries have a health service comparable with our own.

Mr. Bellenger: On what date did the arrangement with Western Germany come into force, and may I declare my own interest in this matter?

Miss Pitt: It came into force two or three months ago. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the specific date.

Doctors and Dentists, Lancashire

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the number of dental practitioners within the Oldham area; how many are employed full and part time, respectively, in the school dental service; and what action he proposes to ensure that the dental needs of the area are adequately met.

Miss Pitt: Twenty-three; two and six; my right hon. Friend has no power to direct dentists to serve in any particular area.

Mr. Mapp: First, would the hon. Lady be good enough to inform us, of the results of the consultations which the Department undertook in March last with local authorities and the professional associations? Secondly, would she say whether in those negotiations or discussions and in subsequent discussions the Department was prepared to consider some initial allowance arrangement such as that which applies in the other professions of the medical world in areas which are under-serviced?

Miss Pitt: I have no knowledge of the consultations between local authorities and professional organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I will make inquiries about them. The question of an initial allowance in the dental service is different from that allowed in the case of doctors because the general dental service is not run on the same lines.

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the number of doctors and dentists, respectively, at the

end of September, 1951, and September, 1961, in the county boroughs and county of Lancashire; and what plans he has to restore to the areas concerned adequate medical and dental services.

Miss Pitt: Figures at the nearest available dates are: doctors, 1,886 in January, 1951, 2,197 in September, 1961; dentists, 1,103 in July, 1951, 979 in January, 1961. The second part of the Question does not arise as regards doctors; as regards dentists, I would refer the hon. Member to my last reply.

Mr. Mapp: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are 40 areas in Lancashire alone which are under-serviced in both elements, a situation which I believe to be general throughout the older areas of the country? Is the Minister really concerned with ensuring that the under-serviced areas have an equitable and proper proportion of the services for which they generally pay?

Miss Pitt: I must repeat that my right hon. Friend has no power to direct dentists, but we are aware of the shortage, which is nation-wide. We are taking all the steps that we can to produce the required numbers. New training schools are being provided. But it all takes time.

Welfare Foods

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the substantial fall in the take-up of orange juice and cod-liver oil since the Welfare Foods Amendment Order, S.I., 1961, No. 352, came into force; and if, in view of the consequent adverse effect on the health of mothers and babies, he will restore the subsidy on vitamin supplements which the order abolished.

Mr. Powell: I am aware of the fall, but do not accept that there will be adverse effects on health.

Mr. Robinson: Does the Minister know the extent of the fall? Is he aware that the evidence available suggests that the drop for orange juice and cod-liver oil has been between 60 and 70 per cent.? As the Parliamentary Secretary said when we debated the Order in April that she did not expect a fall but if there was one the matter


would be reconsidered, does the Minister not think that the time has come to reconsider it?

Mr. Powell: The months immediately following the introduction of charges do not provide a fully satisfactory comparison with the months immediately preceding. I have no reason to doubt that the appropriate vitamin intake is being obtained, though no doubt more will be obtained in future from other sources.

Mr. Robinson: How can the Minister know that? As his hon. Friend said in that debate that the vitamin supplements were still desirable and promised to reconsider the matter if the intake fell, and as the take-up has fallen by 70 per cent., surely the right hon. Gentleman must now reconsider the matter?

Mr. Powell: The appropriate vitamin element in diet is, of course, desirable, but it is not dependent upon, nor mainly derived from, these supplements. There are many ways in which the nutrition of the population can be watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Operations

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the joint memorandum of the Medical Defence Union and the Royal College of Nursing relating to surgical operations performed on the wrong patient and on the wrong part of the body; what steps he is taking to ensure that such errors are eliminated in future; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir; I propose to ask hospital authorities to review their relevant procedures.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that, quite apart from the cases which have been successfully hushed up, there have been 28 known cases of this kind within the last two years? Does he not agree that this is the result of scandalous carelessness? Will he give an undertaking that the recommendations of the memorandum, which should make it impossible for mistakes of this kind to occur, will be brought to the attention of hospital authorities and that they will be asked to adopt these procedures?

Mr. Powell: In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I propose to do that, though some modification may be desirable, and I will ask hospitals in the first instance to review their own procedures. I agree that these are all avoidable accidents, and no step should be overlooked which might prevent their occurence.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: What have these surgical errors cost the National Health Service in damages or compensation?

Mr. Powell: I cannot trace that there have been claims in respect of all or, indeed, the majority of them, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman is interested, I will see whether I can obtain figures for him.

Mental Patients (Hostels)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have provided residential hostels for patients on discharge from mental hospitals; what is the number of hostels completed; and what is the number on which work has started.

Miss Pitt: Seven authorities have had loan sanction specifically for this purpose. To date four hostels have been completed and work started on four others.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of this appallingly low figure, will the hon. Lady do what she can to secure greater financial resources to local authorities to encourage them to proceed with this most important work?

Miss Pitt: I do not think that the answer is greater loan sanction. Local authorities have tended to concentrate on the provision of training centres for the mentally sub-normal. I hope that more and more of them will now be able to turn their attention to the provision of hostels for the mentally ill.

Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Lady aware that the provision of this type of hostel is probably the first priority for the hospital authorities, and that they have asked local authorities to make this provision and the response has been very disappointing? What can she and her right hon. Friend do to encourage local authorities to build more hostels?

Miss Pitt: Local authorities are aware of the importance that we attach to the provision of these hostels which have such a part to play in the full implementation of the Mental Health Act. We certainly encourage them so to do. The fact that we now have before us the 10-year hospital development plans will show what progress is being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Accidents

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Minister of Labour what special steps are being taken to reduce the incidence of industrial accidents, particularly to young persons, in view of the increase in such accidents during 1960.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): It is essential that all concerned in industry should review their policy and activities on accident prevention. To this end I have recently written to employers' associations in a number of industries. Last month I called and addressed a conference in Newcastle, attended by both sides of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry. Action is being taken to follow-up this successful conference. I shall shortly be discussing further lines of action with the B.E.C. and T.U.C. and in so doing will pay particular attention to accidents to young persons and the need for improved training and supervision of new entrants. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education recently drew the attention of local education authorities and principals of technical colleges to the importance of safety training in schools and colleges.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Are not the figures for 1960 very disturbing? Is it not desirable to review the adequacy of the Factory Inspectorate and also the conditions relating to safety committees in factories and their machinery of operation?

Mr. Hare: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. The accident figures last year were extremely disturbing. I think it is not merely a question necessarily of increasing the number of inspectors. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that between 1956 and 1960 the establishment of the

Inspectorate rose by 16 per cent. While the inspectors' visits have an important part to play in accident prevention, I must emphasise, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will emphasise, the even greater importance of urgent action by industry itself.

Mr. Lee: Would not the right. hon. Gentleman agree that, although the Inspectorate has increased, it is still not anything like adequate to the requirements we now have in mind? In other words, we are still quite unable to get an Inspectorate visit once per annum. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any examination is taking place of the incidence of these accidents and into what are the causes, and will he stress that when apprentices are being taught the basis of their crafts safety is one of the things most prominently inculcated?

Mr. Hare: Again, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says at the end of his supplementary question, but I think that if he reads the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories he will see the very large number of points involved and that 65 per cent. of all the accidents have causes such as falling, tripping up, and so on, which are really due, perhaps, to carelessness and lack of safety consciousness among people in industry themselves. I think that that is the thing we have got to get over.

GHANA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the visit of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Ghana.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I appreciate the concern of the House and of the nation. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement issued yesterday. There is nothing which I can add to it at present.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House generally is concerned about the possible danger to Her Majesty in view of the reports of bomb explosions? Can he say whether, before the Secretary of State went to Ghana, he—the Prime Minister-had received any other information about the state of security in Ghana?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, we have made the most careful investigations within our power to do. The incidents of Saturday were reported to me by the High Commissioner in detail. I thought it right yesterday, after considering the question, that my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary should pay a visit to Ghana. He arrived there this morning, and I am awaiting a report from him.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is one consideration which ought not to be taken into account in deciding this very difficult question which the Government have to decide, whether the Queen should go to Ghana or not, and that is the question whether the President of Ghana should lead that country out of the Commonwealth? Is he aware that, contrary to what the President of Ghana teaches his youth to sing, namely, that he is immortal, he is, in fact, mortal, and that, when he goes, if he had led his country out, Ghana would be welcomed back with open arms, when he has passed on to other spheres, which may not be very long?

Mr. Thorpe: Would the Prime Minister give us this assurance, that whilst the advice to be tendered to Her Majesty is primarily a matter for Ghana, it is also for the Commonwealth as a whole? Can he give us an assurance that, as far as Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, the security of Her Majesty is of paramount importance and must take priority over any political considerations as to the effect of the cancellation?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that during the last few days President Nkrumah has been sleeping, as a security measure, in the military headquarters, because he regards Flagstaff House as no longer being safe for him? Will he realise that if the Government advise Her Majesty against going, it will be received with a great deal of relief by many people in this country?

The Prime Minister: Without going into detail of the constitutional situation, as the House knows, this visit was

originally planned for 1959 when Her Majesty undertook this engagement on the advice of Her Majesty's Prime Minister in Ghana, Dr. Nkrumah. For reasons which the House knows, the visit had to be postponed, and in the interval Ghana became a Republic. Therefore, it is quite clear that it is necessary for one of Her Majesty's Governments to take over responsibility for any further visit. In the main, accordingly, the responsibility was assumed by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, as was done in the case of Her Majesty's visit to India and to Pakistan.
With regard to the wider question posed by the two hon. Members who have asked supplementary questions, naturally what weighs the most with me and my colleagues is Her Majesty's safety. This is a very heavy burden which is placed upon us. I feel sure that we have the sympathy of the House. At the same time, it would not be right to disregard the wider implications not only of the present but, as one hon. Member has reminded us, of the future of the whole relations and forward movement of the Commonwealth as a whole.

Mr. Turton: In view of that reply, would my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the growing anxiety both in this country and throughout the Commonwealth since the bomb outrage, he has been in consultation with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers to ask them their advice about the wisdom of further postponement of this visit?

The Prime Minister: We have, of course, been in contact with Commonwealth Prime Ministers recently and we shall continue to remain in contact with them. I am awaiting now the first report of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bellenger: As it is quite obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that there is considerable perturbation in various quarters about the security of Her Majesty on this visit, which I understand, is to start on Thursday, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any further statement to the House before the visit takes place?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that.

BILL PRESENTED

CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL)

Bill to make provision in connection with the international convention relating to co-operation for the safety of air navigation, known as the Eurocontrol Convention; to provide for the recovery of charges for services provided for aircraft; to authorise the use of certain records as evidence in proceedings for the recovery of such charges or proceedings under the Air Navigation Order; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Thorneycroft; supported by Mr. Edward Heath, Mr. J. Amery, The Attorney-General, and Mr. Woodhouse; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Orders of the Day — QUEEN'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[FIFTH DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[31st October:]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—

Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.— [Sir R. Robinson.]

Question again proposed.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: As I was about to say on Friday, there are certain matters which my constituents wish to bring to the attention of the Government and this House, and in due course they will expect a reply from the Government. Let me say at once that I am grateful for the courtesy of the Opposition, to whom I have spoken, and also for the telephone call which I had from the Patronage Secretary this morning. I think that the subjects which my constituents have asked me to bring before the House are probably in the minds of a great many hon. Members.
My constituents ask, first, for a clear statement of Britain's position over atomic tests, Berlin, and disarmament— a clear statement; secondly, the restatement of Britain's policy towards the export trade and legislation against the unofficial striker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]; thirdly, a decision about building a new city of 60,000 people in my constituency at Dawley, and fourthly, the need to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner and a Parliamentary Committee for Private Petitions for aggrieved citizens.
As for atomic tests, no doubt many hon. Members will have received from Women's Institutes and all the women's organisations in their constituencies letters concerning radioactive fall-out. Indeed, in Shropshire and in Wales there is additional concern because of


the radioactive fall-out on high ground. I have, therefore, reread Ministerial statements, including those of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence and, as I understand the situation, there is absolutely no danger from the effects of atomic bomb tests so far to any of the things that we would eat or drink, including milk and fish.
My constituents believe that the Government's position on atomic tests is as follows. In no circumstances will the British Government undertake further atomic tests until there has been a further effort to negotiate with the Soviet Union and the United States. They also believe that the British Government will resume tests only if it is clearly proved beyond doubt that the Soviet Union has obtained a major security break-through with anti-missile missiles.
Many constituents have written to ask me, and it has also been asked in the House, why Mr. Khrushchev and the Soviet Government decided to break their word and conduct their recent series of atomic tests. It appears to me that Mr. Khrushchev took this action to impress his own "Pentagon", certain of his own Army leaders and the anti-West negotiation lobby inside the Kremlin. Therefore, when Prime Minister Chou en-Lai was told that Mr. Khrushchev intended to reopen negotiations with the United States and Great Britain he packed his bags and went straight back to Pekin.
I believe, therefore, there can be no possible excuse for the United States to need to test any atomic weapons in the air at this moment when negotiations are about to reopen. My responsible constituents feel that it is the clear duty of Her Majesty's Government to open negotiations forthwith with the United States and the Soviet Union on atomic tests for an interim ban agreement.
As for Berlin and disarmament, we ought to remember that Mr. Khrushchev, at least, knows something about the world outside the Soviet Union. How many others among those in power in the Kremlin know anything about the rest of the world? In these circumstances, therefore, we ought to push on with negotiations, because it would be disastrous if we failed to negotiate now and another Stalin arrived in the Soviet Union.
To turn to the export trade, the Soviet Union and Communist China have been in this market for a long time. They have been busy in our traditional markets and we have been doing business with them. The main impact from Communist trade techniques is yet to come. Surely the loss of major world markets either to these political manoeuvres or to our competitors could be just as dangerous to our economic survival as any radioactive fall-out.
I have to declare my interest in this matter. I work for an export firm in the City and, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin, I represent a large group of major British industries in the Midlands. Here is an extract from a letter typical of those which I am now receiving from industrialists in the Midlands. My correspondent writes:
I feel absolutely certain that I am speaking also for the majority of businessmen who have attempted or succeeded in obtaining export business, if I tell you that their feeling towards the Government is one of barely contained rage. We have had ten years of Conservative Government, during which time very little has been done to encourage a dynamic attitude towards exports. Such phrases as "Export Joy", "Exporting is fun", indicate the remoteness of the Government to the difficulties and dangers involved.

Hon. Members: Come over here.

Mr. Yates: We had an example recently of an hon. Member opposite coming over to this side of the House.
My correspondent continues:
My own company's experience of exporting, and I am sure that this is shared by many other businessmen, is that the selling expenses are much higher, the selling prices are much lower, the credit taken by customers much longer, and the risks much greater than in trading in the home market. If the businessman is going to take the risks of trying to export, then either he must be protected against loss, or the reward for successful exporters must be increased.…I would like to add finally, however, that it should not be necessary for initiative of this sort to come from businessmen. We have a right to look for courageous and dynamic leadership from a Conservative Government.
I then turn to the Gracious Speech and find the following statement:
They"—
that is, the Government—
will seek to strengthen the balance of payments by the measures already announced, including especially the vigorous promotion of exports.
I want to know what that means.
Does it mean that the British Government will now sponsor more trade fairs throughout the world? Does it mean that the British Government will increase the number of staffs of commercial attaches in embassies throughout the world? Does it mean that they intend to revise the whole credit system for exports? Does it mean that they are to consider export incentive taxation regulations? What does it mean?
I shall require an explanation, and so will the leading industrialists of the Midlands require it, from the Government before the end of the debate. However, I do not want to be too uncharitable. We all realise that the E.C.G.D. is doing a valuable service for the exporter. We also realise that the new matching policy which E.C.G.D. now allows businessmen is a valuable contribution to the battle for long-term credit.
When I returned from Iraq—and this has been confirmed by industrialists in my constituency—I had the impression from both the Board of Trade and the Treasury that the British Government will not get themselves involved in credit or subsidy battles to help the small exporter. Do the Government understand that this is precisely the field of battle on which world trade is now taking place and that it is selected not only by the Communists, but also by our European competitors? I am assured that there is a feeling of savage frustration among many of our smaller exporting firms in the Midlands. It therefore behoves me, after having seen them, to make some suggestions to the Government.
Will the Government kindly, and at once, form a committee drawn from exporting firms, the T.U.C., the E.C.G.D., the Treasury and the Board of Trade and examine without delay the intensive export methods adopted by France, Germany, Italy and Belgium, and thereafter recommend a system which would benefit our exporters in Britain?
Nevertheless, it is not fair for industry to use the Government as a whipping boy for the entire time. From experience abroad, there is no doubt that from time to time British firms fail their customers. Indeed, I have had the

opportunity of reading some of the letters of complaint. The sort of "could not care less" or "take it or leave it" attitude, in some cases, as in Kuwait, is very serious and frightens me, but I regret that, in general, the prime cause for the failure to honour a contract to our suppliers abroad is due to an industrial dispute, and almost invariably to an unofficial strike.
The Opposition need not think that I am going to be uncharitable towards the unions. I want to strengthen them. They have had plenty of time in the last ten years to assert their authority, but it is clear to some of us in industry that they are easily outwitted by trained Communist agitators. I want the power of the unions increased at all levels—on the floor and in the wage negotiating machinery at national level. It is time that the Government paid further attention to this at once.
I cannot think why the Government have been so long in appointing a Royal Commission to examine trades union law and practice in the late twentieth century. Surely, after the E.T.U. case it was abundantly clear that this was necessary. If the Government do not think it necessary, there are those whom I know who think it is. I am, therefore, anxious for certain alterations to be made in the law, which I believe would strengthen the hands of the unions, and, indeed, of the employers.
I should like to see a law passed, which laid it down that the election of any union official who had been before a court and judged to be a person who either created an industrial strike or was responsible for a breach of contract, be declared void on application to the courts either by the union or by the employer. This is a sensible way of dealing with the problem. It means that when the employer comes across a man whom he and the trade unions know to be responsible for causing trouble, it will be possible for the employer to take him before a court and obtain a copy of the record written of the judgment that he was, in fact, guilty of causing an industrial strike or breach of contract.

Mr. Walter Edwards: That is what they do in Russia.

Mr. Yates: It does not matter what they do in Russia. The object is to strengthen the hands of the unions and of employers. Far too many strikes in this country are caused by people who have no loyalty to the working man or to Britain.
I leave that suggestion for the Government to think about. No employer wants to claim damages for breach of contract by one of these people, but he does want it laid down in the judgment of a court that he was responsible. Finally, I do not think that any strike can be, or should be, termed a "legal strike" until it has been approved by secret ballot by those who wish to strike. The Government ought to bring in a law which lays down that all strikes will be legal only after a secret ballot has taken place.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the hon. Gentleman say what action he advocates for dealing with a lock-out? What action would he take to prevent employers breaking conditions without notice to workers, and what action should result?

Mr. Yates: The hon. Gentleman is one of our greatest lawyers. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the law of contract permits a union, or a man with help, to bring an action against an employer, but it does not allow an employer to bring an action against a union. Is that correct?

Mr. Hale: It will take a long time to answer that. The hon. Gentleman said that no one wants to bring a collective action for damages. The reasons are obvious. Doing this only ferments more trouble. The unions are in a similar position about bringing an action for damages through individual members, or a thousand of them, against an employer, and face as much difficulty. There must be justice on both sides.

Mr. Yates: I am not seeking to put this forward in any party spirit. I do not believe that party matters should enter our industrial disputes. We must try to improve the position as soon as we can for the good of the country.
Now I must deal with the Minister of Housing and Local Government. When will he come to a decision about building a new town at Dawley for 60,000

people? It has been under consideration for two years. Surveyors have been there all summer. Why cannot my right hon. Friend give a decision? Surely the survey reports must be complete.
Our point of view about receiving the Birmingham overspill is simple. We welcome the people from Birmingham. We hope that they will be as happy as those who have already come from Birmingham and are working in our industries, but, if we are to have a new city, may we please have some of Birmingham's industry with it? We do not want the Birmingham rate money left behind.
I ask the Government to give this matter consideration almost at once. How is my right hon. Friend to manage this new city with the roads one finds in Shropshire, with no by-passes at Hadley, Dawley and Newport, and heavy export traffic going up the main roal, which is so narrow at Cold Hatton? Surely all these supply problems must be dealt with.
It is all very well for the Transport Commission to paint Wellington Station in advance of this new arrival. It is a valuable thing to do, but why cannot the Transport Commission do something for the station staff who work in offices which look as though they were erected in 1894? I ask the Transport Commission and the Government to think about the railway problem if we are to have a new city.
Does my right hon. Friend realise that in the Dawley area he has brought local government to a halt? It is paralysed until a decision is taken on this matter, and it is unfar to the local authorities to keep them waiting so long.
I now deal with the Minister's wider planning powers, and, indeed, the ever extending powers of the Executive and all Government Departments. This is best described by Mr. Utley, in his book "Occasion for Ombudsman", when he says:
…the life of society which falls under the authority of the executive has tended rapidly to increase, and there is no evidence that this process, in spite of some interruptions, is coming to an end. Hence, the increasing demand that Britain should build up and enforce a code of administrative behaviour.
My conscience is sometimes troubled by some Government actions. I have already got three people out of mental institutions, and I am very doubtful


whether two of them ought ever to have been there. I find that there are sometimes serious troubles in local government because a local authority or an official has taken a certain action for which a constituent has no means of obtaining redress. "The Chalk Pit Case" in Essex, is a fine example of this, and I am also wondering what the Minister of Housing and Local Government makes of headlines in this Birmingham newspaper saying, "Democracy Itself Must Be In Peril".
Counsel, complaining about one of the Minister's decisions, is reported as saying:
I say that because the history of this case has demonstrated beyond doubt, and it must be realised in the Ministry, that where the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is concerned democratic administration is dead, not mourned by the Minister's predecessor, but killed by his own Ministry.
If this sort of thing is being said about the Government and the Executive it must in the long run bring the Government and this House into contempt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, not us, perhaps, but the Government, certainly —or even us, for not taking sufficient action. Headlines like this cannot do the Government or Parliament any good whatever.
The Government have said that they are waiting for the Report of Sir John Whyatt. I have it here, so they need not wait any longer. I suggest that they should make a start, at the end of this debate, by considering the appointment of a Committee drawn from the Government, the Civil Service and the judiciary. I can see no reason why the Report's recommendation for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, on the same lines as the Comptroller and Auditor-General, should not be put into operation.
In addition, I feel that such a Parliamentary Commissioner should report only to a Committee of this House, known as the Committee for Private Petitions, and that petitions should be brought to the Parliamentary Commissioner or to us, or to a Member of the other place, for investigation. People may say, "What you are trying to do is to get at the Civil Service by having inquiries like this." The Civil Service need have no anxiety about the Parliamentary Commissioner. The system has

worked very well in other countries. I understand that such an office will be introduced into the Parliament of New Zealand.
I have already referred to the chalk pit case. In a letter written on 9th September or thereabouts three gentlemen wrote to The Timessuggesting that the Minister was withholding evidence which they required to bring before the tribunal. Should not the people who wrote that letter be sued for libel, or the people be told whether the Minister is suppressing evidence?
The Birmingham Post,reporting on another case, printed the headline, "Secrecy About Reports 'Deplored'". We shall get no confidence in Government or Ministerial Departments until we can clear up some of the feeling that secrecy exists between various Government departments. Therefore, I feel that it is time the Government turned their attention to the question whether the office of Parliamentary Commissioner should be instituted.
I echo the most interesting conclusion of Lord Shawcross when he writes:
I venture to express the earnest hope that those concerned with these matters will give it early and favourable consideration and that before too long a time has elapsed we may see a Bill embodying the proposals made here on its way to the Statute Book, there helping to reconcile the needs of organised society with the rights, liberties and privileges of the ordinary individual.
It must be the work of every back bencher here and now to use all his energies to push this through against those who are in favour of official bureaucratic organisations.
In conclusion, I want to express one or two general ideas. There is no doubt that the Conservative Party and the Government have made a break-through to a new political philosophy. On many occasions we have noticed, in Government speeches, and in Conservative speeches throughout the country, the right sort of thoughts, expressing the right sort of approach to the problems that we have to face, but very often those thoughts are not put into action, or they are thwarted. Some people have suggested to me that the administrative machine is now so powerful that some members of the Government who are supposed to be the political heads of their Departments are unable to put


into action the policies they talk about, which are decided by the Cabinet.
If it is true that the power of the bureaucracy or the officials is such that Government policy is being obstructed by them, the Prime Minister should take immediate steps to see that the forward-thinking policies of the younger generation are put into operation. I know that some may say, "You cannot retire So-and-So, because he has done very well, and he has only four years to go for his pension." In my view, he should be given a lump sum and told to go, because he is obstructing Government policy.
I am not happy with the Treasury. One of the greatest difficulties the Government are facing is the fact that too much power is in the hands of too few Treasury officials. Anyway, having spoken to responsible Conservative industrialists and to ordinary Conservatives in my constituency, I can tell the Government that they see these things going wrong and want the Government to put them right. I shall go through the Lobby in support of the Government, trusting them to put these matters right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is better to go willingly, anyway. I am prepared to trust the Government.
I was impressed by the article written by Field Marshal Montgomery, on defence. I am not sure that we are using our manpower correctly. There is too much power on paper. It seems to me that paper empires are being built. It could not do much damage if the new C.I.G.S., together with Field Marshal Montgomery and others, had a good look at our manpower situation and considered where it is being used in our Armed Forces. I therefore ask that the deficiencies in our security organisation which were so lamentably shown up in July, are put right, together with the deficiencies in the Army of the Rhine. I am prepared to stand by the Government until they do this, but I can tell them that the British people are saying, "Gentlemen, make amends or pack your bags."

HOUSING

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to provide an adequate supply of houses, to assist local authorities in dealing with the hardship caused by lack of accommodation, to prevent profiteering in land and house property, or to plan for the wise distribution of employment and population throughout the country.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) told us that he had had a telephone call from the Government Chief Whip before he began his speech. I think that he may expect another one now that he has finished it. If it is any help to him I can tell him that hon. Members on this side of the House will wish him the best of the argument.
We make no apology for moving an Amendment which, I think, is equal in substance and similar in wording to one which we moved last year, because the housing problem remains with us. It has certainly not grown less in the twelve months which have gone by. Perhaps of all the problems which we discuss in this House it is the one whose lack of solution nags and gnaws most continuously at the happiness of so many millions of people of all ages and conditions who are suffering from one or another manifestation of the whole complex housing problem.
We are encouraged to see a revival of interest in this subject in the Press, perhaps stimulated by the recent lively booklet produced by the Alliance Building Society, or by the attention which has been given to the special problem of the London homeless. For whatever reason, it is a very good thing that the nation should become aware more fully than before of the size and seriousness of the housing problem.
Now we have a new Minister to deal with it. It is customary to congratulate a new Minister on his acquisition of office. I will, at any rate, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having got out of his responsibility for overseas information just before the latest cuts were imposed on that service. Whether the nation is to be congratulated on his arrival at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government we may perhaps be


able to judge better at the end of this debate, because we shall ask the right hon. Gentleman to produce a policy, some measures comparable to the size of the problem with which he is faced, which we did not get from his predecessor.
The contribution of his predecessor to the housing problem may be summed up under seven heads. The right hon. Gentleman told us that now house building is proceeding at a rather more rapid rate than it was ten years ago. He told us that slum clearance was going on very nicely; that the Rent Act was helping in bringing more privately rented accommodation on to the market; that it was neither necessary nor desirable to assist local authorities in their anxieties about high interest rates; that there was no need to increase the total amount of the Exchequer subsidy paid for council house building; that the high and rising prices in London were, if anything, a healthy sign and that they would right themselves in time; and finally, that the Government's new towns policy was satisfactory. All these views advocated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor were either inaccurate, irrelevant or complacent, as I hope to show in the course of my speech.
Let us consider, first, the centre of the whole problem, the total national need for houses during the coming decades. A good many estimates have been made of how many new houses this country is likely to need in the next twenty years. They range from the figure of 6 million, suggested by the Director of the Town and Country Planning Association, to the figure of 8 million, suggested by the author of the Alliance Building Society's booklet to which I referred a little while ago. I think that the lowest estimate which the Minister will find anywhere is 5 million, and in my judgment that is based on an insufficient assessment of how many new households will be coming into existence in the next twenty years.
As against the need for, I would say, certainly 6 million and perhaps 8 million houses in the next twenty years—an average of between 300,000 and 400,000 a year—last year we were building about 270,000 and the average for the last three years has been only 250,000. Hon.

Members will be aware from the latest summary published that the figures for the first three-quarters of this year are slightly down on the comparison for the first three-quarters of last year. In particular, they are down in respect of council houses. In the first three-quarters of 1961, 8,000 fewer council houses were built in England and Wales than in the first three-quarters of 1960.
I stress the figure of council house building because so much of our housing need arises from the necessity to replace houses which are at present standing up. Some of these are not doing very much more than standing up, and many of them are not capable of standing up for very much longer. Estimates of our need for replacement vary, but I do not think that the Minister will find a reliable estimate which will work out at less than 150,000 a year for the replacement of existing houses during the next twenty years.
As a rule, the tenant of that kind of house is not a wealthy person. In most cases he will have to look to council house building for his new accommodation. The replacement of our stock of old houses, therefore, is clearly bound up with what we do about the provision of council houses. Against the need for replacement at a rate of 150,000 a year, at what rate are we replacing now? Less than 60,000 a year—barely 40 per cent. of what is required.
In the light of that kind of figure hon. Members on this side of the House say that one essential part of any solution of the housing problem must be a substantial increase in the number of council houses built in each year. We want to know whether the Minister disputes that. If he does, how does he envisage the rehousing of people now living in houses which ought to be replaced during the next ten years or so? If he agrees with us that more council houses should be built, what action is he prepared to take to deliver local authorities from the bondage into which Government policy on this matter has driven them over the last few years?
We see this need for replacement particularly if we look not merely at the houses which one might call unsatisfactory and due to be replaced, but those which indisputably are slums. In 1954, it was estimated that in England and


Wales there were 850,000 such properties. That estimate by local authorities was a very cautious one; so much so that some well-informed observers said that it looked as if the authorities had estimated not so much the total amount of slums in their areas, but what they hoped to achieve in the matter of slum clearance in the next ten years or so.
But let us take that figure of 850,000, which is certainly an underestimate. In 1955, the Government advocated as a target getting rid of 380,000 of them by 1960. In fact, by 1960 they had cleared only 255,000, leaving us with at least 600,000 slum properties to be dealt with. We are now dealing with them at the rate of 50,000 a year. At that rate it would cake twelve years to get rid of those properties which even on the most modest estimate are considered to be slums, and during those twelve years more properties would be added to the category which must be considered. It is astounding, therefore, to find that the right hon. Gentleman who is the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the former Minister of Housing and Local Government, said, in December, 1960:
In a few years no slums will be left in most of Britain.
The words were well chosen. No slums would be left in most of Britain. But most of the slums are not in most of Britain. Most of the slums are the problem of about fifty great local authorities in whose areas about half of the slum property is concentrated. One could, of course, walk over most of the square miles of this country and say that one had not seen a slum, if the square miles walked over were chosen with only reasonable care. The problem is not to get rid of them in most of Britain. Our problem is to get rid of most of the slums—a very different matter.
The same deception—I do not think that that is too harsh a word—was practised in the Government White Paper on Housing, which said that by 1965 well over half of the 1,469 housing authorities will have got rid of their slums. Of those 1,469, 1,419 could get rid of their slum problem by building at an average rate of 30 a year for ten years. It is the other 50 that would create the greater part of the problem. The former Minister's description of this

matter and the reference to it in the Government White Paper are indicative of a complete failure to understand the magnitude of the problem and where it is concentrated.
I have not the gifts to depict what this problem means, not in the figures and task of building, but to the human beings who live there. I shall merely quote one sentence from a report in the Sunday Timesof 30th April this year, describing certain slum properties. In one family with three children under 10, two have been to hospital in the last six months, one with tuberculosis and one with pneumonia. That is an exceptionally heavy case of misfortune perhaps, but a great many stand very near to that all the time that the slums are still in existence.
I beg the Minister to realise that why we are so emphatic on this problem is that what is lost to a child or adolescent in not having had a decent home in childhood and youth is something which can never be made up to him in after life. That is why I said at the outset that this is a continuing problem. Every month of neglect of it is a reproach to us. The nation is at present celebrating the birth of a child to the Royal House. The nation could not better show its loyalty nor conduct its celebrations than by resolving that it will make a real, determined effort to devote enough of its resources to housing and to ensure that no child shall be brought up in conditions like those I have just quoted.
Why do I stress specially council house building? While I suppose that I would carry every hon. Member on both sides of the House with me in what I have said about the need to get rid of slums, we now face something that has become—I think unfortunately—a party issue between the two sides of the House. The plain fact is that we cannot deal with this problem unless we increase the rate of council house building. I beg the Minister to cut away from the Conservative doctrine which inhibited his predecessor and to recognise that fact.
I say that for this reason. We are all glad to see any increase in the number of people who are able themselves to own the houses they live in, but we all know very well that for a very great


number of people that is an impossible answer and the policy of this Government is putting it as an answer beyond the reach of more and more people. As we were told by the chief of the Building Societies Association not long ago, if one has not an income of £20 a week or more one may as well give up the idea of becoming an owner-occupier.
What about the private builder? Cannot he build houses to rent to meet the needs of the many overcrowded families, families now living in slums and families on the waiting lists? In the first place, as officials of the Ministry told the previous Minister more than two years ago, the private builder is extremely reluctant to build in those parts of the country where it is needed most. He wishes to build in what are already the more attractive residential regions where the need for them, although no doubt existing, is not so bitter and acute as elsewhere. Secondly, he will not build for rent. Of the houses built in recent years by private builders about one in 50 has come on to the market for rent. When they do come on the market for rent, how rarely do they come on it at rents which can be afforded.
I have dealt with the previous Minister's assumptions about the rate of house building and slum clearance. I now take up his assumption that the Rent Act is the solution to this problem. This was supposed to be the answer. This, he said, will bring more private rented property on to the market. I asked the Minister, where is this accommodation? I think that all hon. Members who were in the House then will know the answer the Minister gave. It was, "Look in the advertising columns of the London evening newspapers." It would be difficult to devise a more callous and flippant answer than that.
I have such a London evening paper here. I invite the Minister, if he can, to find an advertisement in it of a property to which any of us could send the kind of constituent who comes to us so often—the head of a family with a wife and two children and an income of about £12 a week. I do not believe he can find a single property there or elsewhere which will meet that need. It is not surprising that a Conservative member of the London County Council said

in a recent debate that private enterprise cannot build today at rents which working men can afford to pay. Does the Minister question that? I do not think he can. If he does not question it, he must admit our case for more council house building.
Before leaving the question of the private builder, I want to say a word on the very frequent practice of private landlords of saying, "We are not going to let our rooms at any rent where there are young children in the family." I ask the Government to realise that it is as a result of their policy that the job of housing the people is mainly a private enterprise responsibility. That is what they have made of it and this is how private enterprise carries out its responsibilities. If any nationalised industry treated its customers in that fashion what would hon. Members opposite say about it? Our case is that private enterprise as a way of housing the great bulk of our people is falling down. Whether that is agreeable to the political doctrines of the party opposite or not, hon. Members opposite must recognise the facts.
The next part of our Amendment refers to the need
to assist local authorities in dealing with the hardship caused by lack of accommodation.
Why do local authorities need assistance if they are to provide more council houses? I will give a recent example. A local authority has been putting up a fifteen-storey block of two-bedroom flats. Looking at the cost it found that if it charged an unsubsidised rent it would have to charge £8 7s. 9d. a week for a two-bedroom flat. It would be able to get the Exchequer subsidy, the higher rate of subsidy under the recent Act and the expensive site subsidy, which would be £1 14s. 6d. That would leave the rent, less Government subsidy, still at £6 13s. 3d.
Without imposing an impossible burden on its rates, how is it to offer that kind of property to the people for whom it is really needed? We know the cause of this. More than anything else it is rates of interest. During the last ten years, for every 1s. which rises in the cost of labour and materials have added to the price of a dwelling, the rise in interest rates has added 14s. It is


against this problem that local authorities are struggling, and against this background that they are trying to see where they can put those whom they move from the slums and how they can make at any rate some provision for those on their general waiting list.
I take as another example of the special problems of local authorities that of the homeless in London. Hon. Members have had a good deal of opportunity to read and hear about it lately. The Minister should be well informed about it. No doubt my hon. Friends from London constituencies hope to catch your eye today, Mr. Speaker, and to develop the problem. I will mention only the bare bones of it.
The London County Council now provides for 3,000 persons as homeless persons. It tries to provide for them in a way which does not, as the old institutions did, divide the family. It opened an institution to which homeless families, man, wife and children, could be brought, and in a fortnight it was full. There are 3,000 such people, whereas just before the Rent Act was passed there were 1,200, so that it has multiplied by two-and-a-half in those four years, and the rate of entry is double what it was eighteen months ago.
In passing, it is not possible to avoid the connection between this and the Rent Act. The time lag is partly due to the fact that since the Rent Act was passed the three-year agreements have run out which protected some people and partly due to the expiry of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958. It is significant that of these people driven into homelessness five out of every eight came from furnished accommodation. Why? Because the owner of furnished accommodation at present can be limited in what he charges by the Rent Tribunal. But, under the Rent Act, if he turns the tenant out of his furnished room and then lets it unfurnished, it becomes a new, uncontrolled tenancy and there is no tribunal or form of inquiry which can stop him from getting as much as the most eager and the most wealthy prospective tenant will afford. That is why people are being turned out of furnished accommodation.
I mentioned earlier the failure of the Rent Act to do the good which the Government prophesied of it. I now

draw attention to the reverse side of the medal, the positive evil which it is inflicting and the impossible burden which it is imposing on some local authorities—because if London is the largest and most spectacular example of this, it is not the only example. It also means 1,000 children in care, because their families are homeless, at a cost of about £500,000 a year to London ratepayers—but the cost is a triviality compared with the point which I made earlier, which is the cost to the nation of allowing these members of a rising generation to grow up in these conditions.
It is no good the Minister saying that London is a housing authority which has a responsibility to deal with this problem. With interest rates as they are, with subsidies as they are and with the basic problem of finding somewhere to build what it is, how can it? Will the Minister at least consider this suggestion? It might be possible for London to do more if the authority could be helped over the financial difficulty of compensation which arises if it causes land which otherwise would be covered with commercial and industrial buildings to be devoted to residential purposes. I will not go into the complexities of that; we hope that by now the Minister is familiar with them. But it is at least one suggestion. If he will not accept any of our major recommendations on housing, he might at least lend a hand in this particular respect.
I have given these illustrations. I have developed the need for more council houses and the burden imposed on local authorities who try to meet that need. Surely it adds up to this: the Government must come to their help either with an increased amount of subsidy or with specially favourable rates of interest. I have mentioned the way in which the previous Minister always handled this matter. He kept telling us that the total subsidy was all right if only it were properly distributed among the local authorities and if only they used it wisely. But no amount of fiddling with the fringes of the problem like this will raise our total of houses built to between 300,000 and 400,000, which is the figure needed or the figure which will ensure that we replace old


and dilapidated houses at a rate of 150,000 a year rather than 60,000 a year.
Our charge against the Government, under the previous Minister, is that they were devilishly ingenious in playing with the edges of this problem and resolutely blind to the great measures which were needed at the centre, and that when we pressed the need for a major change of interest rate policy we were invariably told—it became one of the Government's stock phrases—that housing could not expect to be shielded from any economic difficulties which afflicted the country. So far from being shielded it has been pushed almost into the forefront of any difficulties which there are.
Let hon. Members look at the recent White Paper on public investment, which gives the figures for the current year and the two preceding years of the amount of investment in publicly built housing. Two years ago the figure was £245 million and it is now £230 million. It was shown to be falling, while the need for houses was obviously growing and while the amount of total public investment in all projects was rising.
I have mentioned the great extent of the need. I now consider whether any added difficulties may be created in housing by immigration into this country. We must keep this in perspective. I have shown that 150,000 houses a year are needed for replacement. Next is a figure of which I believe very few of the general public are aware—the increase in population in England and Wales alone by natural growth, by excess of birth over death, of more than 250,000 people every year. It is that which creates the housing need, and we must not allow any comments which are made about immigrants in this respect to get wildly out of perspective. In face of the real need I would say—and I trust that the Minister will support me, because I think that he knows that I am right—that anyone who suggested that we could solve the housing problem of this country by stopping immigration would be practising a most cruel and dangerous deceit.
Further, we must recognise that immigrants who have come into our economy in recent years has been

absorbed by our economy; there has been work for them. Indeed, the expansion of our economy has been in no small part due to the fact that they were there. They have done a great many essential and often ill-remunerated occupations. The people who empty our dustbins, the people who make it possible to keep our hospitals open, the people who drive our buses and drive our tube trains have to live somewhere. If we decide to have an expanding economy, as we have decided, and as one of the features of that expansion we have the introduction of an immigrant population, we must accept that they have to live somewhere.
The Government's own legislation is based on the assumption that we shall still be receiving a good many of such visitors, for whom there will be work and for whose work there will be a need. That is all I need to say on that aspect of the matter. It is important not to get it out of perspective. If that problem did not exist at all, everything I have said about our housing need would still be true.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: And the Six.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend said, "The Six". He is drawing attention to the fact that it is about to be the Government's policy to embark on a policy which would ultimately mean further immigration into this country from Europe. That is a factor which must be borne in mind, but against the solid facts of natural increase, and the need to replace houses, neither of these is a major element in the problem.
If the Minister will not help local authorities either with interest rates or with subsidy, will he, at least, be more favourable to the acquisition of properties by them? When families are faced with eviction, or when families have had a three years' agreement and it has run out and they are asked to pay an intolerable rent, the council can come to their help by saying to the landlord, "If you are to behave like this, we shall have to apply for compulsory purchase of your property."
But we have had cases—my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) had one—where the Ministry


has refused to confirm a compulsory purchase order on a landlord who was proposing to charge a rent five times the gross value of the house. The new Minister should look at that again. He should make it clear that he recognises that increased acquisition of rented property by councils is an essential part of the solution of the whole problem.
In my own Borough of Fulham, the chairman of the Housing Committee recently drew my attention to three cases of attempts to charge the most exorbitant rent, which were only stopped because the Council could at least suggest that it had the power of compulsory purchase. Unless councils feel that the Minister will back them up, that weapon against profiteering will be blunted It is a quaint reflection that the last Minister of Housing and Local Government told us, whenever we complained of hardship caused by the Rent Act, that this could be remedied by compulsory acquisition of the property by the local authority.
It is curious that the right hon. Gentleman should advocate what is, in fact, our policy as a remedy for the results of his own Rent Act and then refuse to implement what he has said. Perhaps the present Minister, whose personal influence in the Conservative Party is wide and deep, I am sure, can urge some Conservative members of local authorities not immediately and automatically to oppose every proposal for compulsory purchase that is brought before their council. If they would do that, it would help the local authorities.
I have spoken about the first two parts of the Amendment—the need for an adequate supply of houses, and the problems of the local authorities—and I now turn to the last part of the Amendment and to what really underlies the whole business. On the top of inadequate subsidies, inadequate powers of acquisition and excessive interest rates, councils are being faced more and more with the problem of where they are to get the land at anything like reasonable prices. Each time we debate this matter in the House new examples can be quoted. I will give two.
Elstree proposes to build a group of three-bedroom houses. The cost of the site alone would be £1,000 per dwelling. That means a weekly rent of £1 2s. 4d.
before a brick has been laid and before any arrangement has been made for sewerage, water or any of the other services. This is for the bare land. What will be the rent of the flat when it is completed? Islington had to abandon a proposal to build a group of houses when the district valuer told the local authority that the land on which this proposal was to be carried out would cost £100,000 per acre. That is the sort of thing that the last Minister of Housing and Local Government regarded as a sign of good health in our economy.
There is a twin evil about this. One is the gross example of how to get an income without working for it. The hon. Member for The Wrekin referred to the new philosophy and ideas emanating from the Conservative Party. Here is a bit of it from the Prime Minister's speech of 31st October. The Prime Minister, speaking about the blessings of restraint and the importance of all groups in the community exercising restraint, said:
Restraint could be restored if we, in our own society, could develop a sense of interdependence between those responsible for fixing wages, salaries and profits, and if this new sense of duty were generally recognised. This is our object. It will take time to achieve. In the meantime, the Government have a duty to give a lead in supplying some part of the restraint required in relation to the increase of incomes.
I would remind the Government that income does not mean only wages and salaries. It means income from capital gains.
The Prime Minister, I would repeat, at that stage of his speech when no one appeared to be listening very much, said:
…the Government have a duty to give a lead in supplying some part of the restraint required in relation to the increase of incomes"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 40.]
Will they supply some part of that restraint to income—for that is what it is—made by capital gains from the sale of land to local authorities desperately needing it for housing purposes?
The other part of the evil is more fundamental. These feverishly high prices are not only an opportunity for immediate profiteering. They are a sign of the lack of plan to deal with problems created by the growing economy and a growing and expanding industry. In


essence, we are bound to have an increased demand for land in the next twenty years and there is no need to regard this as undesirable. It is the fruit of a rising population and, we hope, a rising standard of life. It will be unmanageable if it is concentrated unduly in certain regions of the country.
I have drawn attention in earlier debates to the excessive concentration of new types of employment in the London region. A former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry said that according to the figures it was not so bad in the London and South-Eastern Region. I should like the Minister to look at what Mr. A. G. Powell said in a journal called "The Advancement of Science" in March, 1960, Mr. Powell comments that the boundaries of the standard regions might almost have been drawn with the object of camouflaging the real nature of the London region's problem.
If we look not only at what is officially called London and the South-East Region, but what is happening in the Southern and Eastern Region, we notice that the greatest concentration is in the part of Southern and Eastern Region nearest to Central London. If we look at the whole area, the 40 miles around London, into that area, which contains rather more than one quarter of our population, came nearly one half of the new jobs that came into existence between 1952 and 1959. I have just seen a letter from Birmingham describing a similar problem there. The hon. Member for The Wrekin referred to it and for that part of his speech, as, indeed, for quite a number of other parts, he would find support on this side of the House.
What is the remedy for this? It is not just allowing housing estates to be built on the edge of the conurbations without any provision for industry. That merely increases the number of commuters and makes the traffic problem of our great cities impossible. The remedy is the deliberate long-term creation of new magnets for employment and for dwelling—new towns or, to think more bigly, some new cities. Yet at the moment the number of new dwellings going up in the new towns is only about 7,000 a year.
That disposes of the last of the points which I listed as the previous Minister's contribution to the housing problem, namely, his conviction that there was no need to go any faster about the development of the new towns than we are going at present. I ask the new Minister to realise that the problem of where our industries and houses are going to be in the next twenty years should now be accepted as a major function of government. Some people say that we should have a special Minister to deal with it. My comment on that is that to solve this problem such a Minister would have to have almost powers of direction over Ministries concerned with industry, traffic, defence, agriculture, housing, and so on.
I believe that this is a function for a major Cabinet Committee, of status inferior only to the Cabinet itself. We are becoming more populous. We hope we are becoming richer. All the evidence of history is that when a community does this it must set to work to make itself better governed. That means adapting its machinery of government to that end. At present, we have no adequate piece of the government machine to bring together the various problems of transport, industry, agriculture, defence and housing. This will have to be done if we are not to suffer for the next quarter of a century from fantastic land prices, wretchedly overcrowded cities, and insoluble traffic problems.
There the matter stands. Our case is and has been that a housing policy needs these things:—First, the devotion of a bigger proportion of the country's resources to housing so that we can have a solid increase in the rate of house building, in particular an increase in council house building, which means a complete revision of policy with regard to subsidies and interest rates. Secondly, we must prevent the deliberate aggravation of the problem by reimposing at any rate some measure of rent control and strengthening the hands of councils to get more and more rented property into their own hands. Thirdly, we must, either by the method which we on this side of the House have urged or by any other method which appears likely to work, stop profiteering in land. Last, we must resolve that the nation recognises the need to direct the major industrial growth and


the movement of population in the coming years.
That is our view and those are our proposals. They may be argued. The magnitude of the problem cannot be disputed. If the Minister cannot accept our proposals, it is up to him to show that he has proposals of his own that no longer tinker with the fringes, but go to the heart of the problem.

4.53 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has made a forceful, sincere and stimulating speech, for which I am grateful, because he has not only dealt with current problems but has put them in the setting of some extremely difficult and long-term problems which confront us.
The hon. Member would not expect me to accept his so-called summary of the purposes of my predecessor in this office, who, in my view, did a magnificent job. If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will make one brief reference to what was said before he spoke by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)—not on Dawley, but on what I thought was an unjustified attack on the Civil Service. I felt that in his enthusiasm my hon. Friend made allegations of a kind which those hon Members on both sides of the House who have served in office know to be basically untrue. I want to say that before I come on to the subject of the debate.
We have many problems, but it is right that we should see them and the criticisms of the hon. Member for Fulham against the background of our present position and what has happened since the war. By the end of January, 4 million new houses and flats will have been built in Great Britain. The preliminary census for England and Wales brings out an interesting fact about the relationship of households to dwellings. Let me say at once that this is within the terms of the definitions of "households" and "dwellings" adopted by the census. The census shows that today there are for England and Wales 14·7; million households and 14·6; million dwellings. They are not all in the places of greatest need. Some are unfit and some are obsolescent, but this is a fact that we should take into account as the position from which we start.
Another interesting fact which emerges from the preliminary fruits of the census is that since 1951 the population in this country has increased by 5·3; per cent. and the number of households by 12·1; per cent. The hon. Member mentioned changes in social habits, people marrying younger, and so on. The figures show that the number of households for the same population is increasing. While that increase in households of 12·1; per cent. was taking place, the number of dwellings increased by slightly over 21 per cent. These are the bare mathematical bones of the position, but for all the troubles which remain they provide an indication of the great progress which has been made since the war.
The problem to which the hon. Member for Fulham sought to address our minds today was: what is the future need? In assessing present and future needs there are at least four main factors. The first is slums. The hon. Member said that the figure as estimated by local authorities some years ago was 850,000. Slum clearance has already resulted in the demolition of about 360,000 houses since 1956 and the target of 60,000 houses a year has been exceeded. Slum clearance is now proceeding at the rate of 70,000 houses a year. As the hon. Member pointed out, this problem is heavily concentrated in some towns in some parts of the country.
A larger problem numerically is that of obsolescence. If, for the sake of calculation, we take the stock of houses in Great Britain as 16 million, and if, for the purposes of this calculation, we assume a life of a hundred years, a figure rather higher than his—160,000 houses—would be needed to replace the stock. Indeed, the sights would probably have to be put a little higher when we bear in mind the fact that about 4 million were built before 1880.
The third factor, of course, is that the number of families continues to increase. Many will remember the forecasts we used to make—I certainly used to make them—based on obtaining population figures, of what was going to happen. We were going to become a smaller population of higher average age. Those estimates have been confounded by events. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to estimate that up to 2 million new families will appear in the next twenty years. If that be so, it will


need an average of up to 100,000 more homes a year for that factor alone.
Then there is the definite but quite incalculable factor of the extent to which greater prosperity is leading, and will lead, people to expect higher standards of housing and amenities; and, of course, there is the question of the present shortage. I will, if I have time, refer to immigration later on, but let me say at once that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that it cannot be pretended that if there had been no immigration at all that would have solved the housing problems which confront us today.
These estimates, put forward with the caution that we must use in this matter, probably add up to about 6 million houses or so in the next twenty years for Great Britain as a whole. Some have estimated less and some have estimated more. I see that the estimate of Mr. Lewis Cohen, of the Alliance Building Society, is 8 million. The main difference there is the different guesses he makes as to the increase in the number of households in the next twenty years. The only accurate guess will be that made by hindsight at the end of that period of twenty years.
In relation to this—and I am seeking objectively to set out the facts—at present rates of building, and ignoring for the moment such questions as the shortage of land, about 6 million houses will be built in Great Britain during the next twenty years. But that is not the complete answer. On this, the first, occasion on which I have spoken on the subject, I say to the House quite frankly that I want to see the rate of house production increased in this country, particularly in some Northern and Midland areas.
We have to face the cold, hard fact that our capacity to do this job as quickly as we would like depends on productivity in industry generally— productivity in the building industry. Given the fact that housing is not the only social investment making demands on our wealth—I put that forward not as an excuse but as a fact of the situation that has to be faced—[Interruption.]—I shall be obliged if the House will allow me on this occasion to go through

a long speech without other than absolutely essential interruptions.
May I now pass to the prospects and problems? First, the present position. This year's figures for completions is likely to be over 290,000 for Great Britain and about 265,000 for England and Wales. The number under construction has grown from 271,000 in September, 1959, to 307,000 in September, 1961. There is, and not for the first time, too much in the pipeline. So, quite apart from any restrictions necessitated by the economic situation, it is good sense to slow up on new starts so as to increase the possibility of completing the new houses which really matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked, and others may well ask, how many houses local authorities would be allowed to build next year. The answer depends very much on the plans of local authorities and the urgency of the purposes for which they propose to build. They were asked in August last, in Circular No. 37, to review their plans and to concentrate on urgent needs, with priority on slum clearance. Up to now only a minority of local authorities have submitted plans, but my broad expectation is that next year's completions will be of the same order as this year's.
What of the longer-term housing prospects, bearing in mind the estimates of need about which, as was revealed earlier, there is no substantial difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself? It remains the policy of the Government to maintain the level of house building at as high a rate as is consistent with a sound economy and the many competing demands on the building industry and our resources of skilled manpower.
There is no need for anyone to remind me of the tremendous importance of good housing in relation to the health and happiness of the people. But housing— alas, this has to be faced—is not our only social investment. What we feel it necessary to do in the matter of hospitals, schools, roads, factories, and the like, must inevitably affect our capacity for housing.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the subsidy issue, but he did less than justice to the change which has recently been made, a change which in the case of the authority of proved financial need is a change not only to a level of a £24


subsidy but with the possibility of additional subsidies, including additional subsidies for expensive site and overspill. But the hon. Gentleman made no reference to the fact that under the new arrangements the appropriate rate of subsidy will not be confined to certain kinds of house building but will be put on all houses.
I want now to grapple with the point which the hon. Gentleman raised about the respective contributions of public authorities and private enterprise. Of 270,000 dwellings built in England and Wales last year, roughly 105,000 were built by local authorities, new town corporations and housing associations, and practically all the remainder by private enterprise. The hon. Gentleman argued that local authority building should take precedence over private enterprise building. In my opinion, a man who is able and prepared to stand on his own feet and to house himself is as much entitled to consideration as the man who looks to the local authority to house him. It is a fact that at a time of rising living standards it is both natural and right that an increasing proportion of people should aspire to own their own houses.
Those who criticise the fact that at present private enterprise is producing something like three-fifths of the houses should recall that since the war local authorities in England and Wales have built 2¼1;million houses as compared with little more than 1¼million private houses and I think that they now own in all about 3½million houses. If rent policies were framed so as to require those who can afford to pay an economic rent to do so and so encourage them to find their own accommodation, a great many houses would be released for occupation by those who really need assistance.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention what is being done, as we cannot go as fast as we would like in replacing older houses, to adapt them to the requirements of modern living. Improvement grants were made in respect of 130,000 houses last year to enable owners of soundly built houses to bring them up to date. That 130,000 compared with 35,000 three years earlier, and today half a million houses have been improved with the aid of such grants and

many without such aid. This year's approvals are running at roughly the same level as last year's, and the new Housing Act, which comes into operation on the 24th of this month, will enable local authorities to attack the problems arising from multi-occupation.
The part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that interested me most, and perhaps the most important subject of all, was that dealing with population distribution and the housing and other problems that will arise in consequence. The hon. Gentleman emphasised that the likely increase in the next twenty years will be heavy, and also emphasised the associated problems of its distribution. Recently —and I have studied their remarks with particular and peculiar care— many speakers have urged the recasting of our planning structure so as to enable it more effectively to apply wider conceptions to development plans and decisions.
I readily accept that planning in local authority areas must take place within a concept of a much wider area, that it is my responsibility to ensure this, and that if administrative or other changes prove necessary they should be faced. For myself, I should be very reluctant to depart from the basis of local authority in administration, but a local authority structure that is admirable for one purpose is likely to be less admirable for another. That is a fact of life. I hope, however, that by co-operation between central and local authority a solution to the problem can be found, provided that the central authority sets against area conceptions the local proposals it receives.
Much is being done at the centre to develop this area idea or conception. For example, my Department is making intensive studies in the South-East, the Midlands, Tyneside and South-East Lancashire, those being areas where this problem particularly arises. But, as everyone knows, really tough problems are presented by this likely heavy increase of population, particularly in the next twenty years, and especially in the great conurbations of, for example, London, the West Midlands, Manchester and Liverpool. These population increases will bring in their train formidable planning problems in relation


to the supply of land, provision for overspill, maintenance of the green belts, and so on.
The Department is doing its utmost to see that, as development plans come forward for review, they are reassessed on a realistic basis which takes into account the need to provide, in one way or another, for that additional population— including the movement of overspill, planned or unplanned. This process— which started last year, when authorities were asked to review their town maps, consider the allocation of more land for development, and encourage the full use of urban land by means of higher density, conversion, and so on—goes on, and we must press it forward with vigour. Already, it is resulting in more land gradually being made available.
Nobody denies that in many areas the price of land is high, very high—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too high."] I have listened to the arguments, and I will comment on them. This fact expresses the shortage of land in many places, and the pressure on it. Moreover, by protecting agricultural land by the green belt policy, we ourselves are helping in the process of putting up the price of land which is allowed for development. Despite this, I want to make it perfectly clear that we intend to adhere to the green belt policy.
The Government's policy on this issue, and I want to spend a moment or two on it, is to see that more and more land is brought forward for development; to see that enough land is brought forward in the right places within the existing urban areas as well as beyond the green belt. Oddly enough, the high price of land in some areas, particularly in the older lower-density areas in and around the outskirts of big towns, produces some benefit, in that it is bringing forward for redevelopment some of those areas.
We want much more economical use of urban land, both old and new. We have to accept and encourage higher-density development in suitable areas, and in many cases this means going up. A great deal of valuable urban land is under-used today. There is still a reluctance on the part of some developers and some authorities to go in for this more economical use of land,

but if we are to meet the pressure on land that is likely in the next few years we must make better use of the land coming forward for development and redevelopment, and do that without sacrificing good planning or living standards.
Incidentally, the House may be interested in two examples of what we are doing to get more land in London. My predecessor made a brief reference to the first example during the debate in July. In Kidbrooke, it has been settled in principle that about a hundred acres now accommodating Government establishments will be transferred to the L.C.C., and will house about 8,000 or 10,000 people. This will be a particularly valuable contribution to London's housing since, unlike slum clearance areas, there will not be a rehousing problem to face before the site is clear. Detailed discussions are going on with the London County Council, and the planning of the project is in hand.
In addition, discussions are going on with the British Transport Commission about the possibility of using some of the Commission's land in London, not required for railway purposes, with a view to its being used for housing. It is too soon to say how much can be done here, but it is hoped that we can find land there for housing.
To sum up this part of what I have to say, the Government believe that their policy of increasing the supply of land for development is the right way to tackle the problem of high prices. I shall not go over the arguments that were used in the July debate—for the hon. Gentleman did not—on the Labour Party's proposals to this end, except to say that the evidence seems to be that the effect would be a slowing up in the supply of land rather than a bringing forward of it. In any case, I suspect that scheme would go, with the scheme for municipalisation of land, into the limbo of forgotten things.
I should like, now, to say a word or two on overspill and town development before coming, as I want particularly to do, to the London position. As I see it, on coming to the Ministry afresh, the provision for overspill is probably the biggest challenge of all. Clearly, the population increases forecast for the


bigger conurbations—an ugly word, but there it is—will mean a very substantial overspill in the next twenty years, and our present policies have to be, and are being, correspondingly reassessed.
In the London area, steady progress has been made not only with new towns but with expanded towns, and that movement is gathering momentum. Swindon, Haverhill, Bletchley and Thetford will come to mind, with Basingstoke and Andover likely to come forward soon. In addition, there are firm agreements for nearly 50,000 houses, with a rising figure for houses under construction. In the West Midlands, there was the announcement made in August of measures which, in the Government's view, will provide a satisfactory solution to the immediate problem of Birmingham's overspill. There is development at Worcester, Daventry, Redditch and the possibility of a new town at Dawley.
I can inform the hon. Member for The Wrekin that the survey of Dawley, which is being undertaken on the Government's behalf, is well under way and we expect to get a report in the next few months. The decision to form a new town, if and when taken, would of course include other questions which my hon. Friend raised, such as transport facilities, including roads.
In the Manchester and Merseyside area arrangements, as is now known, are being made for new towns at Skelmersdale and a number of town development schemes at Winsford, Westhoughton and Runcorn. On Tyneside and the North-East, Durham, plans for considerable expansion are under consideration. They include a small town at North Killingworth, and many other ideas are being explored.
Town development so far has mainly been a matter of expanding the quite small towns and this should go on, but the reassessment of the overspill problems of the South-East—with their new estimates of population increase and household increase—means that we shall have to examine the possibility of the expansion of a number of bigger towns which, by the nature of things, can take a bigger expansion. Something of this kind is almost certainly necessary if adequate provision is to be made over the next twenty years.
There is in the Amendment, rather surprisingly, an allegation that we have failed to
…plan for the wise distribution of employment and population throughout the country
which seems to me to be the opposite of the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I ask the House to recall what has happened. Since the war a series of Measures has been passed by Governments of both parties designed to achieve just what this Amendment is seeking, and the legislative powers have never been more vigorously operated than today, illustrated by the negative power of the refusal of I.D.Cs. and the positive inducements to industry to go to areas of high unemployment. This policy, since the war, has resulted in the transformation of the industrial scene of many parts of the country, including many parts of Wales.
I now come to the question of urban renewal, about which we hear a great deal nowadays, the rebuilding of the centres of our cities. This subject was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham. It is not a new process. The replacement has been going on. It is a natural, slow and continuous process, but public attention has recently been concentrated on it.
It is a plain fact of observation that the centres of some of our larger towns are worn out. Patches of redevelopment, while welcome, fall short of what is needed. Major redevelopment is the only solution, and a great deal is going on. In fact, at this moment, about 250 redevelopment schemes of the central areas of our towns and cities are the subject of advice being sought from my Department—a measure of the great deal of work that goes on. In order to focus interest on this activity a special planning group will be set up in my Ministry and will be charged with the task of making a comprehensive study of 'the problems of urban renewal. The group will work in close association with the Ministry of Transport.
I now come to the question of London's homeless. This has recently come into prominence as a result of the increasing number of families having to look to the L.C.C. to provide them with temporary accommodation. There are about 650 families involved—about 250 more than two years ago. The number


is increasing and the impression is—and no doubt this will be brought out in the long-term survey—that the character of this homeless population is changing.
No hon. Member need be reminded of the evil of homelessness and what it can do to undermine and destroy family life. It is an urgent problem which must be tackled energetically and effectively. This is how the L.C.C. sees it. Uncertain about the causes of the situation, the L.C.C. has set on foot an inquiry which they and I hope will throw useful light on the causes and on any long-term trend. I need hardly say that I shall be glad to discuss with the L.C.C. any long-term trend that that inquiry reveals when the investigation is complete.
The immediately important thing is action now to cope with the problem as it exists today and to bring some relief to the families involved. For this the L.C.C. has the power and the resources. The hon. Member for Fulham put to me a specific example of financial aid that might be given. Another example was given to me when I met the L.C.C. I put to that delegation the specific point in this question: is lack of money preventing you from tackling this problem? They replied, "No" and it is only fair that I should say that to the House.
The L.C.C. has the power and the resources and when we met last week there was a useful discussion on the practical steps that could be taken now to help these homeless people. Among these steps was the point made by the hon. Member for Fulham; the acquisition of empty properties with the use of compulsory powers, if necessary. I must not prejudice any decision on any particular case, but I say to the House what I said to the L.C.C.; if such steps are taken there will be no delay in dealing with the proposals that come forward to my Ministry.
Then there is the question of temporary dwellings on vacant sites, of which there are a sizeable number in the L.C.C. area. I understand that the L.C.C. considers that 80 to 90 acres are immediately available for this purpose. Then there is the setting aside, as an emergency measure, of a small number of L.C.C. houses falling vacant for re-let.

There are about 4,000 a year of these although I hardly need say that the bulk of them—indeed, all of them—are needed for other people. But we are now considering this extremely difficult problem of homeless persons. That is a further way in which the problem may be tackled.
However, the L.C.C. has the responsibility for housing and welfare and I should say to the House what I said to the deputation; the L.C.C. has the power, the responsibility, the resources, and I am confident that it will proceed very speedily to a solution of this problem. I fully recognise that when the long-term inquiry is completed there may be material of interest to us all that will lead us to rethink our attitude on this matter.
Of course there are some who seek to make the Rent Act the whipping boy for each and every problem that arises. They have done it before and, politics being what it is, they will do it again. But the L.C.C. saw this problem as one of such special complexity as to lead it to set up a special inquiry. It decided to do this last July and the Committee met for the first time a few days ago. When the study is complete there will be more material for us to study objectively. This sort of thing does not prevent some people, whose gloomy forecasts of what the Rent Act was going to do—

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that at the interview that he had with the London County Council last week they made no complaint about the Rent Act? Could he tell us, since he says that they have the power and the resources, why they came and saw him?

Dr. Hill: I cannot answer the second question. But I will reply to the first. This was a little difficult for me. There was an agreed statement issued, but I see no objection to answering the question. In the presentation of the subject, there was no mention of the Rent Act except for one phrase in the opening speech and one phrase in a subsequent question. It is fair to say that they came to me, as I think is right and proper, not on the basis of a political view but on the basis of a problem that is here and needs to be solved. That is how I discussed the problem with the L.C.C.
Anyway, this does not prevent people, some of whom made gloomy forecasts of what the Rent Act was going to do and were proved to be wrong by events, from blaming on the Rent Act all the troubles that occur, without waiting for a study of the causes of those troubles to be made.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: May I interrupt the Minister, as this is so important? He has suggested that because the London County Council has 4,000 re-lets a year the L.C.C. could rehouse people who are homeless in some of these re-lets. Could I get this clear, because it is important? All these premises are at present being used under the L.C.C. for slum clearance, rehousing, roads and everything. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the London County Council should give priority to homeless people, many of whom have only been in London for a few years, as against 50,000 people on the housing list, living in terrible conditions and who have been on the housing list for years?

Dr. Hill: I am saying that this is the London County Council's own decision. I am referring to some of the issues which were discussed.
On the second point, I fully recognise the difficulty. If it was thought that homelessness was a way to jump the housing queue, those of us who have been confronted with this problem in our constituencies can see the dangers of this without my elaborating the point. But we are confronted here with homelessness, and I imagine that the London County Council, like every other housing authority, must be confronted from time to time with cases for which their normal points scheme and their normal procedures cannot operate. All I am saying is that that is an element to be considered in the solution of the problem, considering the fact that the circumstances of people in this category are, by the definition of homelessness, the worst that are conceivable. But again that is a matter for the London County Council itself.
There is one point that I want to make about the Rent Act, as so much has been said about it in the opening speech. I want to draw attention to what has happened under compulsory purchase orders. The House will recall what my predecessor undertook to do

in appropriate circumstances. The remarkable thing, if there was such widespread profiteering, is that the local authorities did not make more use of compulsory purchase orders. In fact, six orders which were based on Rent Act difficulties were confirmed, six rejected and eleven withdrawn. Another sixteen have not yet reached decision stage. That makes a total of only 39 orders in fourteen months. This is a significant element, a significant fact, and I cannot see much there to support the allegations of widespread profiteering.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my local authority, Battersea Borough Council, applied for a compulsory purchase order and the Minister refused to confirm it, although the landlord was proposing to charge a rent five times the gross annual value? As a result of that experience, the council did not think it was worth applying for any further compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Austen Albu: And the same thing happened in my constituency.

Dr. Hill: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot comment on individual cases.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor last year suggested to local authorities that they should apply for compulsory purchase orders and said that he would give consideration to them? Is he further aware that many local authorities, having regard to what his right hon. Friend advocated, in fact threatened on many occasions throughout the whole of London, including Greater London, that they would apply for these orders and as a result they achieved a great deal of satisfaction for many thousands of tenants in Greater London? As my right hon. Friend has given figures of the effect of certain actions by local authorities, has he any figures relating to the point which I have mentioned, which, in my submission, has greater strength than the figures already given?

Dr. Hill: I fully recognise, as will the whole House, that the existence of these powers of themselves had a persuasive


influence not expressed in these figures. Nevertheless, the figures themselves indicate at least that the allegations of profiteering so widely noised abroad were not fully justified by those figures.
To sum up, there has been striking progress in the creation of new homes in the last ten years, and it is from that position that we start, as indeed we must start, in tackling our current and prospective problems, whether they be the overall increase in housing provision, the continuance of slum clearance, the replacement of obsolete houses or meeting the needs of a growing number of families.
We have increasingly to plan in terms of wider areas, to bring more and more land into development without departing from the green belt policy or recklessly eating up agricultural land, and we have to use urban land much more economically, to press on with overspill and town development and with urban renewal. We are tackling these problems and we shall continue to tackle them, but, the Amendment, coming as it does from a party which left office with such a melancholy record in housing, exhibits as much irrelevance as it does effrontery.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: It is customary to congratulate a new Minister on his speech. I shall do so because I think he has graduated very well. He has used more words to say less than anybody I know, except the Prime Minister, and he is doing exceedingly well. He has told us nothing at all that we did not know already.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about the rising population. It seems to me very peculiar that the Minister should complain because the population of his country is rising. He said that he had a difficult task. Of course, he has a difficult task. We know that. The question is whether he is capable of performing it. From what we have heard in his speech so far, we have no reason to suppose that he is. He told us nothing whatever about what was to be done about the higher price of land. Apparently, nothing at all is to be done about it. Nothing at all is being done about the Rent Act. The Minister is perfectly happy with its operation. He thinks that everything is going splendidly. He told us virtually nothing.
I do not propose to detain the House long, because I know that a great many hon. Members wish to speak, but my constituency is a place with one of the most concentrated housing problems in in the country, not even excepting London which, heaven knows, has a problem which is enormous. I wish to speak about our difficulties in the Black country, in Birmingham and in my constituency in particular.
Sixteen years after the war, at a time when, according to the Prime Minister, we have never had it so good, at a time when large sums are being spent on the production and advertising of detergents, hair dryers and a whole host of other goods, there are thousands of people who simply cannot get houses. Why is this so? Thousands of people today suffer from living in conditions which many people in Europe and in America have long given up because sufficient houses are being provided for them. Why are houses not obtainable for people in this country?
I make no apology for speaking about my own constituency where, today, in a population of about 80,000, there are 4,600 people on a waiting list which was drastically pruned only recently. Those 4,600 people need houses and are quite unable to have them. There are 3,750 slum houses which have already been condemned as slums but about which it has not yet been possible to do anything. The rate of building is approximately 600 houses a year. What hope will there be of people in those conditions having a house at all? What hope have they of moving out of the houses they are living in now?
What houses are they living in now? I will give a few particulars to show the sort of amenities which are absent. There are 10,000 houses with outside lavatories. Is that right, in 1961, with conditions as they are today? Is that a fitting tribute to ten years of Tory Government? The Tories have been in power, both since and in between two wars, for over twenty years, yet that is the situation in one town. Most of these houses have no bathrooms at all. The walls are peeling and the ceilings are falling down. Not only that, one of the most important defects is that many of the houses have only one sitting room. We hear talk from the Minister


of Education about education problems and the need for advance. What hope is there of children being able to study satisfactorily and carry on their work as well as they should when there is only one sitting room for the whole household and everything goes on in that one room?
Many people sit in a dream world, watching their television sets and thinking how nice the world is, dreaming of all the things they would like to see and do, but when they look about their homes and climb up their own stairs they see the truth of the conditions in which they live. This sort of thing happens to very many people in my constituency, and, as my hon. Friends at least will readily agree, in the homes of thousands of people in other constituencies, too.
Many people are living more and more like Eskimos, huddled and crowded together, trying to keep warm in one small place because there is not even enough warmth for them in the rest of the house. I heard a curious story the other day about how even Eskimos can improve their conditions. A small group of Eskimos wanted to build some houses; they thought it would be a good thing to spend the money they had earned on that purpose. Some prefabricated building parts were sent to them from abroad. Although all the directions included with the parts were written very well, none of the Eskimos could read. But they were very successful in their efforts. Parts for six houses were bought, but such was their skill that they managed to build seven houses out of them.
We have immense difficulties here. Of course we have. But there is one thing the Government cannot do, and that is blame the trouble on the immigrants, although some hon. Members are inclined to do it. The right hon. Gentleman did not do so; he was careful not to say it, but some of his hon. Friends blame our housing problems on the immigrants. This is grossly unfair because all the problems which I have mentioned existed long before the immigrants arrived.
I do not speak as one who has no immigrants in his constituency. There is a large number of West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis there. Never-

theless, out of that large number, only about five have had council houses allotted to them. This is not because of any colour bar but merely because, according to the points scheme, their length of time on the list, and so on, the vast majority of immigrants are not entitled to a house. What do they do? They crowd into large houses which probably were occupied in the past by small families who could not afford to keep them up and who, therefore, got rid of them. I do not say that the immigrants live in the houses they occupy. I say that they camp in these houses in conditions which leave a great deal to be desired. They are not conditions of the kind we should like to live in at all.
The point is that, if all the immigrants left tomorrow, the housing situation would be much as it is today. Many other things would happen, of course— I shall not go into the matter now, because there will be an opportunity to discuss immigration later—and many of our important services would have to stop. But that is not the point. The fact is that they do not have a tremendous influence on the housing problem compared with the general situation which existed long before they came.
Why are things as they are? There are several causes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, one cause is the failure of the Government to subsidise house building for overcrowding. They withdrew the subsidy, and building to replace overcrowded premises is not now something for which the local authorities may have a subsidy. No doubt, the Minister and many of his hon. Friends will say that a solution to the problem is perfectly easy. Houses are built for those who can afford to buy them and then, it is said, immediately the houses in which they have been living become empty people in overcrowded areas can move in.
It all sounds wonderful, but, of course, it does not work like that. In my own constituency, quantities of houses are being built by speculative builders— goodness knows, they are hideous houses and the council houses are far better to look at—but who will move into them? People from Birmingham and elsewhere who happen to be able to afford to buy


houses—not the people on the Birmingham housing list—'buy these new houses and Live in them, while my constituents cannot possibly move into the houses they vacate. It is absurd to expect them to do so.
Money is not everything, as the Minister himself said. He quoted the London County Council as saying, apparently, that it had all the money it needed. That sounded rather peculiar.

Dr. Hill: Let there be no misunderstanding. I asked the representatives of the London County Council whether they were prevented by lack of money from dealing with the problem, and immediately they frankly said "No". That is all.

Mr. Dugdale: One problem in the Black Country and the Midlands—no doubt the same applies to London—is the shortage of labour. The reason for the shortage is that labour is being used to build many things other than houses. Some of the buildings going up, of course, are necessary—schools, hospitals and so on—but many of them are completely unnecessary. Many are built purely for prestige reasons by companies which make so much money that they do not know what to do with it and prefer to use it in that way rather than pay more out in taxes.

Mr. Frank Allaun: There are the two Shell-Mex buildings.

Mr. Dugdale: As my hon. Friend says, there are the two buildings erected for the glory of Shell-Mex by workers who might have been building more houses to help the homeless and overcrowded people of London. Housing should have a far higher priority, and building workers should be engaged not on building big office blocks but on building homes.
What must we do? First, there must be a real sense of urgency in the matter. It is this sense of urgency which, plainly, the Minister does not feel. He does not regard the problem as urgent but as just one job to be done by a Government Department. It is not an urgent matter calling for attention at once, in his view. I think that obviously he should restore the overcrowding subsidy—the general subsidy. He should, too, lower the

interest rate for local authorities. He should subject all office building costing over £10,000 to scrutiny to make sure that it is really needed. If that were done, it would release labour which could be used to build houses.
In addition, my personal opinion—I do not know whether I speak for all hon. Members on this side of the House—is that the Minister should nationalise a very large section of the building trade industry. We often hear of the troubles in this industry and how the workers are not doing this, that or the other. It is said that they are not working hard enough, that they are not working as hard as German, French and Italian workers. Much of the trouble in the industry, however, is due to bad organisation. I should have thought that it needed a great deal of reorganisation. If it, or a large section of it, were nationalised, we might have that better organisation and we might be able to build far more houses at greater speed than we are doing today.
Today, there are not just two or three but many thousands and indeed millions of people living in conditions such as those that I have described. How long have they to live in those conditions? As far as I can see, if this Government continues in office, they will have to live in such conditions, not for five years, but for 10, 15 or 20 years, which is the greater part of many of these people's lives. It is because we on this side of the House think that it is intolerable that they should be made to continue to live in these conditions that we say to the Government, "Do the job of housing these people. If you cannot do it, get out".

5.51 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I should like to begin with a word of welcome to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and to wish him well in the most exacting job in which he finds himself. It is likely to prove every bit as exacting as he indicated in his speech this afternoon. On the housing figures alone, I find it difficult to decide whether he has good cause to be disgruntled with his inheritance.
I have never known a debate on housing in this House in which the Opposition have not been able to prove, with


the figures, that the position was quite deplorable and the Government have not be able to prove, on the figures, that the situation was well in hand. However, let me endorse one thing which was said by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). For reasons less than clear to me, immigration has been included, or is supposed to be included, as part of this debate. I should like to echo what has been said about getting the matter into perspective. There might be good reasons for taking action on immigration, but I should not have put housing among the principal ones. There are many difficulties facing us in housing, but I should not put immigration in the forefront of them. If immigration must be so considered today then we have reason to suppose that there is something seriously wrong with our housing policy.
What worries me about the position confronting my right hon. Friend is not the record but the prospect. I think that there are signs—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts this—that we are running into a series of difficulties which, unless resolved fairly quickly, will either slow down the whole programme or seriously unbalance it.
One of the Opposition's complaints, which was levelled this afternoon by the hon. Member for Fulham, concerns the share in building which is held by private enterprise. They find a source for aggravation in the fact that, whereas nine-tenths of the houses built in 1951 were council houses, the proportion built by public authorities today is something like two in five. Home ownership may have its drawbacks, but it continues manifestly to satisfy the wishes of very many people. The political demand that more council houses should be built seems to me to draw a very faint public echo. I should have said that socially there was the strongest impulses behind home ownership which I think it would be well to recognise.
The trouble that I see on the horizon is due not so much to the failings of private builders but to the failure to get more sensible arrangements between the public authorities which own most of the land and have the populations to house and the private builders who are building most of the houses. I say to

my right hon. Friend that if the Government want private builders to continue to do most of the job—and there are compelling reasons for them doing it— economically and in conformity with at least some principles of town and country planning, more must be done to ensure that they have the right conditions for the job. Today, industry has the money, labour and "know-how" to do this. The public authorities have the land and the means to acquire it.
It seems to me that there is far too big a gap between the two sectors. We are getting, not only messy results—this is becoming very evident in a large number of areas—but diminishing returns, because so much private enterprise building is being done in tiny packets, which is often uneconomic and unsightly. The shortage of big sites on which, subject to overall conditions laid down by the public authority, the private builder can conform to a plan, do a tidy job and, in many places, make a very big contribution to slum clearance is being overlooked. It seems to me that our present planning policies favour fragmentary development, and that is development on the wrong scale.
The second problem which I think is marching up on us is the growing conflict between industrial and commercial policies on the one hand and housing and social policies on the other. This relates to what my right hon. Friend called and I shall call overspill, and it is perhaps the biggest problem of all. I do not hesitate to say that the Government appear to have lost their grip on it. Admittedly there are aspects of this balance between commerce and industry on the one hand and housing on the other which are very difficult to control, although it would be easier if we took steps to get more reliable information about not only what is going on but what is likely to go on in the course of the next five years.
Consider, for example, the migration of people, which I think is increasing in speed, from the declining areas in the North and West towards the new and expanding enterprises in the South, and, in particular, the South-East and to the Midlands conurbations. This is a movement of enormous social consequence, and apparently at the moment it is beyond our control. It is a movement


which, if we enter the Common Market, will greatly increase in south-east England. This is something which, I should have thought, should be provided for and forecast and on which we should get all the information that we can.
I am aware that the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade do what they can to steer new industrial development against this stream. In so doing, they inevitably cut across certain policies pursued by the Ministry of Housing. That situation has obtained for a very long time, and it is much easier to criticise it than to find some way of resolving it. The Local Employment Act cuts across practically every stream pursued by almost every agency. However, that is a subject in itself.
A question to which I should like to know the answer is how much of this tremendous concentration of population in London and south-east England is due to industrial and how much to commercial development. Do we know the figures? My right hon. Friend has announced that the London County Council will hold an urgent inquiry into the housing situation in London, the extent of which is better known by hon. Members who represent London constituencies than by me. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that half the inquiry, if it is to discover how these people come to be here and why they are here, answers itself.
A policy which over the years has drawn more and more people to the commercial development of London and which has been allowed to proceed unchecked will inevitably build up a bigger head of population than London is able to accommodate. A policy which, I am bound to say critically of the L.C.C., has tended to favour development which builds up high rateable values—that is high commercial development—must inevitably build up to this pressure, the consequences of which we are now feeling and into which this inquiry must be held. I hope that the inquiry will not be into housing alone but will take some recognition of the growth of commercial development and what ought to be done about it.
In the last seven years nearly half the new jobs in Great Britain—45 per cent.

—have come into London or south-east England, an area which already holds 27 per cent. of the population. Surely in that figure we have the heart of the London problem into which the inquiry is to be conducted.
I do not know whether the Government accept this as inevitable or not, but what is absurd—we really must try to get some control over it—is a situation in which one Government agency, the Board of Trade, continues to provide, stimulate or countenance employment in areas from which it is the Government's wish to move large numbers of people. That policy does not make sense.
Have we a policy about commercial building? Surely that ought to be almost the start of this inquiry. Have we said where we want it to go, and what initiative have the Government themselves taken to encourage the decentralisation of commercial building and work not only from London but from other places with which we are all familiar?
I feel sure that the housing programme will run into increasing difficulties unless the Government feel themselves able to express more clearly and distinctly their wishes in respect of this kind of development. They may be on record as having said what they want, but it is not clearly or widely enough understood.
This bears heavily on another big obstacle in the way of getting on with housing, and, in particular, with slum clearance, and that is land shortage. It is true that local authorities were instructed last August to extend their plans to cover land allocation up to, I think, 1981, which should make more available.
But the problem which is confronting many local authorities, particularly in South-East England, is in getting even the wildest forecast about what they are to expect in the way of prospective development. Unless it can be made a little clearer by research and intelligence what the indications are of future trends —at least, of what the Government want to see—and unless we are prepared to try to influence these changes, planning for many of the local authorities becomes simply a lottery.
It is my view that, in the absence of any reliable guidance, many local authorities round London are now devising


policies of their own which may or may not conform with what the Government want. Many of them are now preparing their own immigration policies, putting up barriers in their own way, and the planning officer is becoming the instrument for resisting further development which there appears to be no other way of avoiding. One county wishes to declare itself a green belt area. Another county refuses planning applications in such quantities that the number of appeals is greatly increased.
Partly due to this difficulty, public inquiries are threatening to become an industry. I do not know the number of inspectors at present required by the Ministry, but it must be about 200, which is twice the figure required five or six years ago. While I should be the last to question the conduct of the inspectors—most of the inquiries seem to be carried out with great patience and skill and the utmost fairness to both parties—the multiplication of these inquiries and the weight imposed upon my right hon. Friend are very great.
There is another problem which bears even more on slum clearance namely, overspill, to which my right hon. Friend referred to as the biggest challenge of all. I do not think that London, nor the Midland or Northern conurbations, will make make much real headway with slum clearance without stronger guidance and policy on the subject of finding physical space not only for the big voluntary exodus which is going on—which reflects the movement of the more prosperous society, and perhaps we have not yet fully appreciated that—but for the worst housed in the largest cities.
Among the planners, as I think many hon. Members are aware, a great deal of thought has been given to this problem. More than one possibility has been advanced. It would be helpful if we could know on which of these the Government are inclined to put their money. One possibility is more new towns, not only for the Midlands and the North but perhaps for the South as well. I think I am right in saying that we have had only one in England since 1951, the one mentioned by my right hon. Friend— Skelmersdale, in Lancashire. Is the new town policy now favoured or disfavoured? How does the new town idea stand in relation to the next five or ten years?
A second view is that certain of the bigger towns—my right hon. Friend just touched on this—should be deliberately scheduled as what might almost be termed new cities. The attraction of the idea is that it offers one of the few real hopes of providing a counter-magnetism to London, to the megalopolitan capital, encouraging people to go to places which are cities in their own right, and attracting them not only industrially but socially and culturally as well.
A third view is the expanding town as prescribed by the 1953 Act, which is, I think, widely known as a horse now running on three legs. I have given my views on what I regard as the fundamental weaknesses of the overspill idea before, and I will not repeat them, but one might be added to everything which has been mentioned before. It is that overspill is far more susceptible to chilly economic winds—such as Bank rate changes—than almost any other form of development. It is very noticeable how overspill rises and falls almost with the economic climate.
I suspect that overspill is making no serious contribution to slum clearance at all. I believe that if it were examined statistically that would be found to be the case. The question which the Government ought now to ask themselves and to which they ought to find an answer is the following. In the light of the experience of this Act, which has now been operating for eight years, and even with the very indifferent intelligence which we seem to have on the subject, does it appear to be harder to get people to hop the prescribed distance—some 60 miles, was, I believe regarded as the optimum distance—not only to new homes but to new jobs than to persuade them to move to planned zones nearer their home cities?
I ask this question because it is noticeable that we have not had a long-distance new town—Skelmersdale is not a long-distance new town—since 1950. Is the long-distance migration, conceived for overspill in the interests of planning, breaking down socially? If it is, we ought to make a decision about this and decide whether it is a horse to continue to back. Is not the overwhelming social trend today for people to concentrate on the perimeter of places which afford a wide range of employment, of new and


lucrative industries, and, as they see it, of personal prospects not only for themselves but for their families? In short, do we not see now the most compelling social trend lying in peripheral sites round big towns, particularly in the Midlands and the North? If this is so, would it not be better to face it, accept it and try to plan it properly?
What are the alternatives? My right hon. Friend touched on the question of building up and higher densities. I myself put a very strict limit on what higher building and higher densities, particularly in our present society, will achieve in the way of providing the accommodation required in overcrowded cities. Secondly, we have the expanding towns offering a fractional contribution. We are really left with peripheral development—the garden cities, satellites, or whatever one might call them. This may be wrong or right, but What I think is futile is to turn a blind eye to what is clearly the principal social trend and try to pursue contrary policies. At present, we have a great many people who can afford to do so struggling to buy land on the periphery of areas, squeezing in between green belts and developed land, and such fragmentary development imposes huge pressure on planning officers, provokes the bulk of the public inquiries, leads to bad planning, and, I predict, is storing up immense transport problems for the future.
Surely to accept broadly the policy to develop large periphery sites, separate but within the daily communication of the main cities and not involving the start of a new life, and to invite private enterprise developers, subject to the public authority's overall plan, to tackle it might produce a tidier result, relieve the cities, speed slum clearance, and in the end help resolve a lot of prospective transport problems.
This raises the last point I want to make. In all development on this scale, whether for central redevelopment or periphery development, one major difficulty clearly arises, which is the co-ordination of public and private enterprise. This was the first point I made, and I emphasise it. Private enterprise has the money to buy land and the labour, but not the power to acquire sites. The public authority has the second but not the first. Do we need some new agency in

order to try to posit better co-ordination between those two elements? Whether it might be a development commissioner or a development corporation —whatever it is called, does not, I think, matter. As things are, we make too large a demand on a Ministry which already has a great deal to do in respect of the co-ordination of central and periphery development. I think that the essential thing to do first is to close this gap between the two and properly to organise what the building industry can achieve.
I have a feeling—I would be very happy if my right hon. Friend would like to contradict this—that the Government are nervous of the financial implications of any move in this direction. I think it is possible that the Treasury has shaken their nerve on what the Government commitment would appear to be if they were to speak too much about development commissioners or other agency to try to co-ordinate central redevelopment or anything else. If that is so, I think it would be as well to say so and to relieve a great many doubts.
I would say, in conclusion, that what is chiefly needed from my right hon. Friend is to give the planning of our physical development the right emphasis need not cost any money at all. I think that what is lacking is not money, but a central theme. I am bound to say that I think our aims have become very muzzy. Our town and country planning almost inevitably has become a series of negative and, I think, increasingly complex controls and decisions. In this tangle, sense of direction, certainly inspiration, on the part of public authorities, seems to have been lost.
It would be a help if, from time to time, senior members of the Government —not associated with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—could suggest to the public that this is a matter of immense importance. If aesthetics only were at stake I would not stress it, but far more than that is at stake in these issues. Planning is, after all, the disposition of investment. We argue a great deal in this House about the financial implications of our investment, yet we appear quite astonishingly casual about the physical consequences. They have a profound bearing, in my view, upon the capacity, the productivity and


the efficiency of this country, quite apart from social well-being, and I think it is time that we awoke to a sharper sense of responsibility here.
It does not require any grand design or Royal Commission or new planning, but only a proper direction of agencies at our disposal. I should have thought that both sides of the House would have agreed that in this matter the Government should be in charge of the strategy and the local authorities should handle the tactics. That is the best way we can do this. I think that the strategy requires to be more carefully formulated and more forcibly expressed. It is really not enough simply to deny all the time. The Government must be ready to show a little more initiative. While nobody expects the Government to command their ideas should commend themselves more forcibly. I suggest to my right hon. Friend, beginning, as he is, in a new and extremely difficult office, that the status of physical planning should be elevated and the contribution which it can make to the national effort be recognised.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Deedes), quite rightly I think, criticised his own Government for what he called their lack of initiative in the overall planning of housing. I would agree with him there, because it is fair to say that this is a national problem. Being a London Member I want to concentrate on London affairs, but this is also a national affair, having a connection with national resources, and it has to be planned at that level, and the Government themselves must have a firm plan which is understood by county councils and other local authorities.
I would add to what the hon. Gentleman said about the strategy in planning which must be operated by county councils and other local authorities must always be done on the understanding that at the end of the day they can afford it. They are not given an incentive to do it. I would say, too, in adding to what the hon. Gentleman said, for I think that he made a worthwhile contribution to the debate, that there is one thing which must be emphasised above all else. It is no

good asking the local authorities to take over responsibilities for housing planning if at the same time the Government say to them, "To borrow money you must borrow it at rates up to 7 per cent."
That alone imposes a burden upon many local authorities which they are just not prepared to accept. They just cannot. Once that happens any plans we may have, any hopes, any dreams we may have, vanish. The Treasury, as we know, is the villain of the piece, but, even so, anyone would have supposed, knowing the "'fluence" in the Ministry in the past, that it would be given some privileges in the matter of housing.
I believe that that is the main difference between this party and the Conservative Party in this issue of housing; it is the difference in the fundamental approach of this party and that party. I say this very sincerely. We on this side of the House do regard housing as an absolute social need. It is a must. It is something people have got to have, and it is not a commodity to be exploited for private profit. That is the difference between the two parties. The two parties almost crash into each other over and over again on this.
I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite say that there is nothing immoral in a person owning a considerable amount of housing property and making a vast profit out of it. But I think that that is immoral. It is immoral to exploit people, to take exorbitant rents from them and to threaten them, "If you do not pay we take your home." It is immoral, no matter what sort of regulations we try to fix around it in law to "protect", as it is called, tenants. That is something I have never been able to defend.
We have seen now and we have heard of that sort of thing in the private building industry. The vast majority of privately built houses have been built not to rent, but for people to buy—at prices which, I know, some can afford to pay, but always at profits to the builders who rent or sell the houses. Never is the question of need considered. It is always a question of how much one has in one's pocket. If I already have a house, if I am already perfectly comfortably housed, and I have £5,000, or


£7,000, or £8,000, or £10,000,I can afford to buy a house, and no questions are asked.
That is the only yardstick, and that is the difference between what we on this side have said and what hon. Members opposite have said, and that is why we want county councils and local authorities to build, in the main, and to have control of this property. It is not something which comes out of anything that Keir Hardie said way back in 1900. It is a matter of plain, sheer, common sense. The yardstick is need, and that is the factor which we must face and cannot avoid in housing today.
The hon. Member for Ashford spoke of planning and referred to immigration. It is right and proper that it should have been said here that immigration problems have nothing whatever to do with housing. I was glad to hear the Minister say so. It was to his credit that he said it. I do not know whether his predecessor would have said it, but that is something which can be quoted back against the right hon. Gentleman's critics. My local party has been accused of wanting control of immigration. I want to make it quite clear that we do not ever want control of immigration from this side of the water to stop people coming in, but it is monstrous to allow them to come here without caring a damn what is happening to them. It is monstrous to allow them to come to Victoria Station, as I have seen 500 or 600 of them arrive, wearing summer dresses in the depths of winter, with nowhere to go and being exploited right, left and centre. To allow that sort of thing to go on and do nothing about it is monstrous.
There has been the terrible eruption in Tristan da Cunha recently. The Government quite properly dealt with the inhabitants' problems. They took responsibility for moving them to this country. They have found hostel accommodation for them. They intend to try to rehabilitate them and fit them into the community, but what have they done for the West Indians, the Pakistanis and the Southern Irish? We have said to them, "If you come over here, find your own way, and the best of British luck to you." The party opposite says

that these immigrants can be controlled only by stopping them coming into the country. I do not believe that at the end of the day that is the answer, and I am glad to hear that immigration is not to be argued as a reason for our housing problems.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: So that we may have it on the record, would the hon. Member agree that a good deal of the exploitation of which he spoke in the housing of unfortunates from the West Indies is by West Indians themselves who have come here in advance and have found it extremely profitable to exploit their own people?

Mr. Mellish: I have no doubt at all, knowing the rapacity of private landlords, whether white or black, that they would exploit them. This only confirms the principle which I mentioned earlier when I said that property should never be allowed to be the subject matter of exploitation.
I apologise for concentrating the remainder of my speech on the problem of the London homeless and on London housing generally. I have been a London Member of the House of Commons for fifteen years and I had always thought that the time would surely come when the number of people coming to see me about their housing problems would get less and less. Why is it that I get more and more? The Minister gave figures and did his comic turn at the very end of his speech when he tried to knock the previous Labour Government on their housing record. I will not indulge in that kind of argument. This is much too big a problem for that. One of the things which the Minister had better get clear in his mind is that we do not have people coming to us in as vast a number as before with problems about the housing of elderly people or matters concerning the installation of a bath, and so on. It is the young married people who are in the vast majority of those who come to see us.
This is a social trend. People get married at 20 or 21 or 22 years of age nowadays. I ask the Minister where he thinks a young married couple earning £12 or £14 a week will find a place to live nowadays. They cannot get anything from the building societies.


They do not even ask them, because they know the answer before they get there. The cost of any worth-while house in London today is between £4,000 and £5,000. Anything that costs £2,500 in London is a slum. It is because the cost of property has gone up like this that young married couples finally go to the town hall and say, "Can we put our names on your housing list?" Every town hall list is virtually barred to these people.
What am I to tell them? Am I to tell them that they must stick it out with their "in-laws" and hope that they do not get evicted? Many of these families have become homeless and, let us face it, many of them do quarrel with their "in-laws". The Minister said that he is quite convinced that the Rent Act has nothing to do with it. He said that to talk about the Rent Act was merely to play party politics. If that is not saying that this is no fault of the Rent Act, I should like to know what is.
Every house that becomes vacant becomes prohibitive in rent. If a tenant lives in a house of £40 rateable value and it is controlled, what is forgotten is that when he moves from that house it is immediately decontrolled and the landlord can then charge what rent he likes. I could give instances of property in London—and my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has already mentioned some advertised in the newspapers today—where a rent of 4 guineas a week is asked for one room. A flat of two rooms which was worth only 50s. a week a few years ago now bears a rent of 6 guineas to 8 guineas a week.
It may be said that some coloured people take these flats, but what the Rent Act has meant is that the prices now being asked make this accommodation so prohibitive that the vast majority of families cannot move about as they were accustomed to do. The Government make this doubly sure by making certain that the Bank Rate is so high that people cannot go in for buying their own houses.
I believe in a property-owning democracy. I have always said to my party, "Do not let it go out into the country that we believe only in council houses. It is not true." We want a property-owning democracy. I want to

see 100 per cent. mortgages at a fixed 2½per cent. interest for the whole period of the loan. What is immoral about that? Why cannot Britain do it. Cannot we afford it? If we cannot afford that, we cannot afford a single shell. The party opposite is making a sham of a property-owning democracy. It is destroying it, because it will not allow people to buy. Hon. Members opposite say that they believe in people owning their own houses, but they make it impossible for people to afford to buy and by doing so they are destroying many decent families.
As to the homeless, it is the figures that count and it is the figures that impress. Forty-five families a week are coming to the London County Council and saying, "We have nowhere to go. We have no roof over our heads." An analysis has been made of the position of 60 families. I believe that the Minister knows about this analysis. It showed, first of all, that the great majority of these families are Londoners, born and bred. They are not strangers, they are not Midlanders or foreigners. And the vast majority of them are homeless because the house was sold with vacant possession. Is that the Rent Act? It cannot be anything else.
What is to be their future? I do not want to be too emotional about this, but I was told the story the other day of a couple who became homeless and were taken to one of these centres. They are by no means the best of places, because they cater for the problem family and people do not provide luxuries for problem families. I know one case of Londoners, born and bred, who had been tenants in a house for a considerable period. The house was sold because the original tenants moved away and, therefore, they as sub-tenants, without rights, had to go.
The wife ended up in one of these centres where she sobbed her heart out all day. They had nowhere to go, and this mighty Britain had nothing to offer them. There was "no room at the inn". This is happening to 45 families a week. It has happened to 681 families or about 3,000 people, the vast majority of whom are the people of London. We want an answer from the Government on this problem in the immediate future.
The Minister said that he felt sorry for the homeless families. So do I. But they do not want sympathy. I do not see why, without offending any Conservative principle, we should not now amend the Rent Act to provide that any disagreement between the landlord and the tenant must be referred to a tribunal. Is there anything immoral in that? Cannot the Minister give way on that? Why not provide that no one can be evicted unless a magistrate finally decrees that it shall be so, and also provide that cases shall be decided on the basis of hardship, so that if hardship exists the magistrate can decide in favour of the tenant? When tenants have to go to court now, although magistrates may cry over them they can do nothing for them except apply the law.
Let us change the law. Let us get it straight that unless both parties face the housing problem together, as something that is a national need, we shall go on arguing party politics at the expense of thousands of ordinary people.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: It is my intention to begin where the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) left off and to concentrate mainly on the national picture. Before I do so, however, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, our new Minister of Housing and Local Government, on his appointment. He has a considerable task ahead of him, but a very substantial record of achievement behind him.
The Conservative Administration have nothing to apologise for in their success story in house building over the last ten years. I agree with the hon. Member for Bermondsey that home ownership and good housing form the cornerstone of our society. It is essential for our community that it shall be healthy in body and mind, and a good home is a quite essential part of our social life.
My right hon. Friend admitted that there was a long-term problem. I agree. I am not satisfied that the building industry today is turning out the number of houses of which it is capable. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), speaking outside this House comparatively recently, drew attention to the need for new techniques in the

building industry. Those new techniques are overdue, and with our present labour force we could get a very much larger output of homes year by year.
In this connection, I draw attention to the success of the agricultural industry. It has been losing land to housing, and it has been losing farm workers, yet, at the same time, the output from the industry has gone on rising year by year. Are we not entitled to look to the building industry to increase its output similarly?
My right hon. Friend referred to certain statistics which emerged from the recent census, but those statistics are altogether misleading. The task ahead of us is still challenging. There is still a great latent demand for housing. I start with the fact that we still have 600,000 slum dwellings to clear, and draw attention to the remarks of Professor Michael Wise, of the London School of Economics, speaking at a town and country planning association conference on 25th October. He pointed out that there were 6½million pre-1919 dwellings in this country, and went on to say that only half were capable of being modernised.
That means that we still have 3 million dwellings which were built prior to 1919 and which are incapable of being modernised. These must, therefore, be dealt with under the rehousing programme, in the not too distant future. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that this factor must be kept well in mind when we consider the future.
Several important factors, most of which are well-known to hon. Members who are taking part in this debate, are increasing the demand for good housing as the years go by. We have higher living standards, and a greater proportion of old people wish to have dwellings of their own. We have more separate households, and a smaller number of people per household.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey referred to the fact that people nowadays marry at an earlier age. When I was young a generation was reckoned to be about thirty years. In other words, there were approximately three generations each century. Today, a generation is


about twenty-five years, and I submit that we are facing the prospect of having four generations each century. That means that the velocity of the human reproductive cycle is increasing. That in itself will create a considerable extra demand for housing.
There is another factor to be considered. Reference is often made to what is called the "bulge" in the educational programme. The young people of this bulge are in the secondary schools today and will be wanting to get married by the mid-1960s, and that in itself will create a supra-demand. It is significant that in 1938 there were approximately 350,000 marriages a year; between 1950 and 1960 that number had risen to 400,000 and it has been estimated confidently that in the mid-1960s there will be approximately 500,000 each year. We are, therefore, looking towards the time, in the not too distant future, when there will be yet another extra demand for housing.
I want to touch only briefly on the subject of immigration. It will have an effect on housing, but only a minimal one. Hon. Members on both sides have put this matter in the right perspective, but I want to make one observation on immigration which is of importance to the building industry. Irish labour is of immense importance, and if anything is done to restrict it coming into the country the effectiveness of the industry will be severely impaired.

Mr. Mellish: From the South or the North?

Mr. Temple: I now want to put forward some major considerations which I always have in mind when looking for a policy. First, the pull of a big city is absolutely inexorable, and is a factor which we must live with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out, the Common Market will increase the pull of southeast England. It will be only part of a highly developed area, embracing the Low Countries, the Ruhr and the industrialised area round Paris. I believe that Brussels will be the centre of that community, geographically, but south-east England will be well within the heavily populated area which will develop as a result of Common Market industries being established there.
I do not believe that the building of high flats is the whole answer to the problem. I do not like it. I come from the north-west of England, and I can say with confidence that high flats are not popular with the people of those parts. Moreover, I do not believe that these high flats are good for our society.
I agree that green backgrounds have to be provided in our future policy. I use the phrase "green backgrounds" in the same way as Sir Patrick Abercrombie used it when he produced his Greater London plan. The increased development of urban centres will have to be encouraged. There will have to be more new towns, and more use made of town development schemes.
I now come to the three fresh approaches that I propose in order to grapple with this problem—and I recognise that there is a problem. The first two are minor proposals, but the third, which is an administrative one, has considerable substance. First, there are the improvement grant schemes. These schemes have been going exceptionally well, but in a great part of the country the landlords have shown a singular reluctance to take advantage of them. In provincial Britain there are many small landlords, and I am convinced that they do not know enough about these grants. Year by year I see the exhibit of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government at the Royal Agricultural Society's Show, but only the relatively large landlords visit that show.
Much more publicity should be given to improvement grant schemes. Let us make them known to the smaller landlords. I believe that the way to do this is to stage an exhibit, similar to that at the Royal Show, at our county shows, and to make available a mobile exhibit which could be sited outside the council offices of our smaller authorities. By this means, and by an extensive drive undertaken by local authorities, I believe that the value of improvement grants could be made manifest. That would do a great deal to prevent a high proportion of the 6½million pre-1919 houses from falling into decay, or becoming slums and having to be dealt with by the local authorities.
I fear that my second approach may prove controversial. I think that caravan homes could make a substantial contribution to the solution of our housing problems. I am not suggesting that caravan


homes could be anything but ancillary, but I believe that they could play an important rÔle. In considering the development of housing plans one must take into account what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. In the United States the caravan home is extraordinarily popular with many who are retiring and who have spent most of their lives among the professional classes. I could quote examples of residential caravan parks in California with upwards of 1,000 plots. The residents on those sites are happy with their homes.
If anyone doubts what I say, I should be glad to take him to see first class caravan sites [HON. MEMBERS: "In California?"] In England or in Wales, but not in California. In addition to their value for retired people there is an argument in favour of young married people starting their married life in caravan homes. They would enjoy the advantage of mobility and, at the same time, would be able to save money to buy a traditional type home.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister is not at present in the Chamber. In his speech, he almost pointed the way to the major administrative approach which I am now proposing to advocate.

Sir Barnett Janner: Before he comes to the administrative approach, would the hon. Gentleman care to offer a comment on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) about the Rent Act in view of the present situation?

Mr. Temple: I did say that I have rather a long contribution to make and that I wished to concentrate on the national picture. I have already mentioned the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey three times and I Chink that I must leave another of my hon. Friends, better qualified than I am, to deal with the London problem. In any case, the hon. Member for Bermondsey is not in the Chamber now.
Paragraph 49 of the 1961 White Paper was very specific about the provision of land. It states:
the important thing is to make sure that housing progress does not falter for lack of land.
The hon. Member for Fulham referred to the excellent brochure sent to

us all by the Alliance Building Society. This brochure is entitled, "The Housing Land Crisis". I regard it as a thoughtful analysis of the present position and I do not dissent from any calculation made in the brochure. It is not unrealistic to go for a target of 400,000 houses per annum. But that brochure ends with a "challenge to planners" which I propose to accept.
I believe that an entirely new approach in planning is required. When one is looking for a new approach which might be acceptable to the Government, it is as well to study certain Ministerial pronouncements and I have studied some of the comparatively recently pronouncements of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury. He has been doing some thinking about the possible reconstitution of our river boards. It is significant that the years 1947 and 1948 saw the reconstruction of the administrative structure in the two very important spheres of town and country planning and river boards. It is not without interest that my right hon. Friend has been doing some fresh thinking about the organisation of river boards. He has referred to them as water conservation authorities and he proposed, in his confidential memorandum, which ceased to be confidential three months ago, that thinking should be encouraged on the lines of the new river boards being much larger authorities and with a greater scope.
I believe that my right hon. Friend has pointed the way towards the planning authorities, which came into being in 1947, becoming larger and with greater scope. I do not say that the present planners are inefficient, but I do say that there is something radically wrong with our present system of planning.
I recently had the advantage of hearing Sir Edwin Herbert speaking at a town and country planning conference. He is reported to have said:
We seem to have reached a power vacuum and no machinery exists to re-examine major regional problems.
I believe that Sir Edwin was entirely right. He is brilliant in analysing any situation. He did not claim to be a planner, but he produced an objective report on the reorganisation of local government in Greater London.
I believe that the present administrative structure of planning is faulty and that regional planning is the only way in which the power vacuum referred to by Sir Edwin Herbert may be attacked. My reasons for saying this are fairly cogent. I believe that a genuine conflict of interest exists between counties and county boroughs which are our present planning authorities. Naturally, both have a vested interest in rateable values. Normally, the county borough is the authority with the housing problem. To solve this problem it wishes to expand, and the only way it can do so is by increasing the area of its territory and encroaching on the preserves of the county. I know that my right hon. Friend may say that he has set up regional conferences to settle these matters, but I believe that the conflict exists and will continue until there is a larger authority which may take an objective view of the whole problem.
Sir Edwin Herbert also drew attention to the fact that many of the development plans do not run concurrently. I propose to mention only the London development plans, because I think that they are indicative of the way in which development plans mature throughout the country. The development plan for Croydon was approved in 1954. The development plan for the London County Council was approved in 1955 and that for Hertfordshire in 1958. The London County Council submitted the first review of its development plan in 1960, just over a year after the Hertfordshire plan was approved. I cannot see how any Minister can form an objective view of planning in the London region when these plans come in for review at different dates. It is physically impossible. He could form an objective picture of the situation in the London region only if all the plans come on to his desk at one and the same time.
I wish now to deal with what may be termed a possible criticism of the remoteness of regional planning authorities. I believe that their remoteness may well be advantageous. It would mean that the planning problem is looked at objectively whereas, as I have already said, the fact that there is rateable value in one area as opposed to another is probably a substantial consideration in the minds of the people representing

local authorities. Remoteness will also be an advantage because it will lessen personal considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), in a most interesting paper presented on 25th October to a conference of rating and valuation authorities, drew attention to the dangers of corruption. I believe that my hon. Friend was entirely right to draw attention to the possibility of corruption. If we remove the power from the counties and county boroughs and put it in the hands of the regional authorities there will be very much more chance of objective considerations being the major considerations in the planning sphere. At one and the same time that would remove any dangers of personal influence being brought to bear.
To outline very briefly my concept of a regional planning board, I should say that one must first consider planning in the "city region", but that also the whole country should be divided into regions. I submit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South did in his paper to that conference, that we might envisage 15 or 16 of these regional planning authorities. The structure of the boards might well be on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in his memorandum on water conservation authorities. I suggest that as to three-fifths of their membership they should be drawn from local authorities and as to the other two-fifths the members of the boards should be representative of the nationalised industries, of industry generally, and any other special interests in their particular areas.
It is most important that these regional planning boards should be brought into being so that they can redirect the development which we see at present. This has been referred to as peripheral development, which appears to be a term describing leapfrogging the green belt which is generally unsatisfactory. These boards would have a chance of delimiting certain areas which would be suitable for new towns and expanded old towns.
I wish to say a few words about new towns. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary designated Skelmersdale as a new town, but I think


that the concept is a little timid. Development corporations are experienced in these tasks and it is time that we allowed them to tackle something of the order of a new city. Let Skelmersdale have a population not of 80,000, but of 160,000. When I was talking about a year ago to the Director of City Capital Development in Tokyo, he told me of a project for 13 new towns round Tokyo each with a population of 150,000. Let my right hon. Friend be imaginative and let us have one much larger new town so that we can see what a development corporation can do. I am confident that it would do the job perfectly well.
I have taken rather a long time to develop this new administrative point, but I regard it as of immense importance. I believe that it is almost the key to all the difficulties to which reference has been made in this debate. I am convinced that we have to live in this country with expanding urban growth. More land in acceptable places must be found. Regional conferences I regard as hardly a palliative and certainly not a cure for our present difficulties. Regional planning backed by regional research staffs is, I believe, the missing link.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I was sadly disappointed, particularly at the end of the Minister's speech, in my hopes that he would take this problem rather more seriously than did his predecessor. I hope he will cut out all the party stuff and treat it as the human tragedy it really is.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that housing conditions in parts of London such as my constituency are a disgrace to this country. After listening to my constituents describing some of the conditions under which they have to live, and then being forced to tell them that there is nothing in present circumstances which can be done, either by the Government or the whole House, makes me sometimes almost ashamed to be a Member of this Parliament. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I have found, during the last fifteen years, that of ten constituents who come to me with their troubles, nine come to talk about housing and only one about all other subjects. The only

difference in the last two years has been that the ratio of nine out of ten has risen to about nineteen out of twenty; and now there is absolutely no solution I can offer them.
I shall quote an actual case—only one —to the Minister to try to get him to understand what is going on at present. This is the case of a constituent of mine who works as a postman. He has a wife and two children. Until the Rent Act came into force, he had no reason to think that he would need a new home and, therefore, he never put his name on any local authority list. He was evicted under the Rent Act a few months ago because the landlord wanted to get vacant possession of his house. His family is now separated, living in two separate places with all that that means. His health has been damaged by his efforts walking round the streets of London in the evenings to try to find another home.
This constituent earns as a postman an income, determined by this Government, on which it is absolutely impossible for him to find three rooms for himself, his wife and two children in London. It is impossible for him to borrow money to buy a house. I always advise people to do that if they have any chance whatever; but because this industrial worker is over 50 he would have no chance of paying the instalments for the full life of the loan. He is perfectly willing to go to a new town and to travel from it every day to a job in London. But the new town authority says that he cannot have a house in the new town unless he takes a job in the new town. The Post Office says that if he does that, he will be transferred to a junior job at a lesser salary. That is one case showing the sort of thing about which we are hearing every day. I wish the Minister would tell us if he can think of any remedy that we can offer in a case like that.
There is no serious doubt about the cause of this situation—not just the immediate homeless crisis, but the general shortage of housing in the Greater London area. There are two reasons. The first, as the hon. Member for Ash-ford (Mr, Deedes) was perfectly right in saying, is the over-development of employment in the whole of the Greater


London area, and in particular the overdevelopment of office employment in recent years, over which apparently we have almost no control. Incidentally, I do not believe that immigration has anything significant to do with this, because it is the total employment in the whole area which determines the demand for housing. If particular jobs on the railways or in the hospitals were held, not by coloured people but by others, they would still have to be housed in London. Unless we get control of the expansion of employment, we cannot get control of the housing problem.
The second thing which the Minister might as well admit to be an aggravating factor is the Rent Act. We know that of the cases which come to us now, a large number are of people who have been evicted. In addition, if people have not accommodation now, it is impossible to find it because of the high rents demanded on all sides; and that was not true until the Rent Act was passed.
I want briefly to suggest some of the ways in which I think we have to tackle this problem, especially in London but also in the country as a whole, if we are to put an end to the present state of affairs. It has to be a comprehensive attempt in which the whole problem will be treated as a real emergency in our national life. First, I am sure that what we have to do is to get similar control over commercial and office development in the whole London area as we have to some extent over factory development.
The only way which I can see in which it can be done is to bring office development under the same control as that of the industrial development certificates with which, as the Minister reminded us, he has partly succeeded in controlling factory development in recent years. Unless we do that, there is no possible way of overcoming this problem. It is no good increasing densities and then allowing the population to increase still further, because the problem will simply go on growing. Therefore, the Government must either extend the industrial development certificates or, if the Minister prefers, restore building licences for commercial development in South-East England only. That is the first, essential step which must be taken.
Secondly, we must extend local authority building on a large scale; and we must have lower interest rates and proper subsidies to enable that to be done. Thirdly, I would suspend the absolute rule now enforced that a badly housed family cannot get a house in a new or expanding town unless the applicant gets a job there first. As the hon. Member for Ashford said, that is why this overspill and new town and expanded town procedure is not making the big contribution to the housing problem which it could make. It seems to me that if a man, for the sake of his family, is willing to travel some distance to his job, at any rate for a time, he ought to be allowed to decide to do that, and no public authority ought to be allowed to rule him out.
Next, I would encourage local authorities—and I think that the Minister could do this—to end the present practice by which house purchase loan interest rates tend to be fixed for the whole period of the loan. Building societies normally arrange for the interest rates to vary with the Bank Rate and interest rates generally. But most local authorities fix the rate for the whole period; and therefore when the rate of interest rises to 7 per cent., they suspend house purchase loans altogether. I see no reason that that should be done, and I think that the Minister might encourage them to do it less in future.
In addition, the Government should now restore the public finance which was provided until last summer to building societies to enable loans to be given more easily, because, in present circumstances, with income limits and all the rest of it, it is becoming extremely difficult to obtain a house even by purchase.
I also believe that the emergency is so great in London that we ought to stop pulling down houses altogether for purposes other than slum clearance, while conditions are as they are now. All the new accommodation which the London County Council and the borough councils have available should be used to rehouse either people from the waiting list or those who have been removed by slum clearance. I do not believe it right at present to deprive people of houses in order to build new roads or anything of that sort.
I put these suggestions before the Minister, because we must do something drastic, determined and perhaps unorthodox if we are to treat this as the human problem which it is and not just as an argument between the parties. Unless the Minister tackles the problem of over-commercial development in south-east England, everything else will prove vain.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has put forward some valuable points, but he started off by saying that they would be revolutionary. I do not feel that they went far enough, if I may say so. I should like to be more revolutionary than he was.
What has emerged, not only from this debate but from discussions over the past two or three years concerning housing, is that we have been working on two errors of fact. The whole of our past policy and programme, both that of the Government and that which has been put forward by the Opposition, has been working on two errors which I may perhaps politely describe as erroneous forecasts. One was the forecast about the rate of increase of the population and the other was the forecast about the rate of increase of households.
Those are two cardinal errors which we have committed in the development of housing policy and which we can put right, now that we know the facts. When the programme of 300,000 houses a year for Great Britain was fixed, ten years ago, we were working on a population forecast which has since been doubled. Taking the figures for England and Wales, the population in 1950 was 44 million and we were told that in 1970 it would be 46 million. In fact, it is very nearly 46 million in 1961. We were thus 100 per cent. wrong in the forecast of the population which would require to be housed.
As far as that population increase is an increase in the number of young children, it only indirectly raises the demand for homes. Where a young, married, childless couple might have stayed longer with their parents, now that more and more children are being born there is a greater and greater demand for homes for young married couples. As far as the rise in

population reflects the fact that older people are surviving longer, there is a direct increase in the demand for homes by reason of the trend of older people not living with their married sons and daughters as they used to do. We are also faced with the bigger demand which will arise from the teen-age bulge; those teen-agers will soon be marrying and demanding homes. One can prove all this by statistics if it were necessary.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) asked, "Why is it that I am getting more and more applications for housing? Why are more and more cases being brought to me?" I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Gentleman knows from his own observation and his own experience that the problem is just as acute, just as massive, as it was ten years ago, although it is not quite the same problem. Of course, it would have been infinitely more tragic and more disastrous if a Conservative Government, over the last ten years, had not given priority to the building of houses to a target of 300,000 houses a year.
The nature of the problem is not quite the same as it was ten years ago. The nature of the present problem is, first, the localised shortages and the need to concentrate our effort in certain areas where there is a real shortage of homes, and, secondly, the lack of building resources and the fact that we are overstretching the labour market in house building. Those are the present problems and I do not think that our present policy faces up to them; the policy does not concentrate the building where it is needed and does not use our limited building resources to their best effect.
The present policy is that we should aim at a target of 300,000 houses each year, partly provided by local authorities and partly provided by private enterprise, but scattered throughout the country without any real direction or any attempt to concentrate on the areas where homes are most needed. To my mind, the policy of scattering our building throughout the country has had its day. It has served its purpose well for the fifteen years since the war, but in the light of present circumstances it does not face up to realities.
I have looked at the Opposition's policy, and I do not think that that faces


up to the realities, either. I cannot believe that the reintroduction of rent control, the creation of a special land-holding corporation and things like that will add a single home to our store of houses in the country, and I am looking for a policy which will produce half-a-million new homes a year.
I think that we need 5 million houses over the next ten years. I am not so bold as to forecast over twenty years, because social trends change. But I think that we can forecast over the next ten years, and I do not think that we can put the figure at anything less than 5 million houses over those ten years, which means an average of 500,000 homes a year. I do not think that anything less will meet the demand.
On how these are to be produced, as between the public sector and the private sector, I would say that we ought to keep about the same proportion as we have now, which is about two-fifths produced by the public sector and three-fifths by the private sector, because I do not think that anything less produced by the public sector would be, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) pointed out, an answer to the slum clearance programme.
Those in the public sector have to be built where the demand at present exists or where we determine that it shall exist; that is, we have to build where the demand already is or we have to adopt a deliberate policy to oblige people to live in certain areas. I do not think that that could be tackled by loading the subsidy to local authorities at one time for a particular purpose, such as housing old people, and a few years later loading it for some other purpose just to encourage local authorities to build for certain purposes.
In fact, I do not think that the policy can be now carried out by local authorities at all. I would aim to replace subsidised local authority building by new town procedure—not at once to stop all local authority subsidised building, but to aim to replace it by the building of new towns and by adopting new town procedure not only for building new towns out in the countryside, but for building new towns within towns.
I am sure that hon. Members can think of vast areas either in or near their own constituencies which should be

bulldozed, flattened out and rebuilt. I believe that we should undertake that by new town procedure and not by subsidised local authority procedure. I ask hon. Members to forget for a moment the big towns, like London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, and to think of the smaller boroughs and urban districts with waiting lists of 4,000 or 5,000 and with massive slum clearance programmes for which they have not the professional and expert people needed to carry them out. Those local authorities can see no prospect of doing it themselves even if assisted by all the subsidies that the Government like to give them. They have not the qualified men there to do it. It would have to be done by development corporations in those areas which form communities of their own and which could thus be developed by new town procedure.
If the Government would proceed on those lines, with new towns within old towns, they would tackle the problem of the localised nature of the shortage of homes and we should get a balanced development in keeping with modern thought. I ask my right hon. Friend, when thinking about this, not to spurn the offers of private enterprise to come in on that type of development. There have already been offers by private enterprise to develop new towns and to build whole new towns, and I believe that co-operation by cleared site offers to private enterprise could produce valuable results.

Mr. Percy Collick: I have been trying to envisage the hon. Gentleman's proposal in the area of Merseyside, Liverpool and Birkenhead which he represents. Can he give a practical illustration of how his proposal would affect the situation on Birkenhead and Merseyside? There, the problem is how can the local authorities on Merseyside build houses at rents that people can pay in the present economic circumstances. Private enterprise cannot do that.

Mr. Page: I can give the hon. Gentleman an exact example. He well knows, on my side of the Mersey, Seaforth and Litherland, an area in which there are very old properties over a very wide area which could be demolished and


which ought to be demolished and rebuilt as a new town in itself. I believe that ought to be done not by means of subsidies to local authorities, but by new town procedure by a development corporation. That is an example of it.
The Local Employment Act is, I feel, a positive danger to development unless something of the sort that I am suggesting is used in conjunction with local employment development, otherwise we get industries brought to an area, as they have been brought to the hon. Gentleman's side of the Mersey, without any consequent development of housing.
I pass quickly to my second point— that we are not using our building resources as economically as we should. I realise that if we are aiming at a target of 5 million houses in ten years, we cannot achieve it without a radical reform in the building industry and in building techniques. We cannot produce 5 million traditional houses in the next ten years with our present building resources. I do not want to suggest that we should increase our building resources. I believe that it could be done by using new techniques in building.
Perhaps this is an unfortunate moment to mention new techniques when my right hon. Friend is sending out a circular about replacing aluminium houses. We still remember, too, the roofs at Hatfield. But do not these examples show how woefully we have ignored this subject in the past? The Ministry or the D.S.I.R. should have a team working on new building techniques, discovering and testing them, and trying out quicker method of building houses. Surely we do not have to go on taking the months that we do take to build modern houses.
Who is to blame? I think that there are many on whom one could put the blame. First come the byelaws. The building trade tell me that they cannot possibly build non-traditional houses to meet the present byelaws. Building societies are perhaps to blame for not making advances on non-traditional houses, and perhaps the Treasury, which has not been prepared to support local authorities who wanted to branch out in experiments of this sort. But it is not beyond the wit of man to produce a house which could be erected in a matter of hours rather than months. We ought

to try to discover the techniques for doing that.
My proposals are: first, that we apply new town procedure to development both outside and inside existing towns; and, secondly, that we search for development in speed of building. By those means we should be able to produce the 5 million houses over ten years which are needed to meet not just the luxury demand for homes, but the absolute necessity for homes which there is at present.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The debate has produced useful contributions from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put forward some ideas about which I and my hon. Friends may wish to think again, although we may differ from him about some of the details.
I thought that the Minister's diagnosis of the problem was in the main correct, but he evinced a complete lack of endeavour to try to solve it. He seemed to rely on legislation which was passed in the last Session. One of the first things I looked for in the Gracious Speech was a proposal for dealing with the great ulcer in our society, namely, housing. As I expected, I was disappointed, because there is no mention of housing, apart from a special reference to Scotland, where good legislation is long overdue. A brief examination of the proposed legislation does not suggest that any epoch-making decisions or policies are likely to come before the House in the near future.
Historically the Gracious Speech is always modest, but even a modest document can have life breathed into it by the appropriate Minister or Ministers if they are sensitive to the problems and react to the moving appeals which are made in the House. The speeches this afternoon should lift this subject above party. It should be dealt with as an outstanding problem on which there is common agreement and a common desire for great improvement. Yet the Gracious Speech does not contain any real proposal to deal with the problem.
As I come from the North-West I want to speak particularly about the problem of migration as a result of slum clearance. Perhaps the hon. Member


for Crosby is right in suggesting that we should direct our thoughts away from the overall subsidy arrangement and start thinking in terms of areas. There is clearly a special problem in London. The Minister should have recognised that the slum problem is largely centred in fifty or sixty older towns. The Gracious Speech should have contained proposals to deal with it in the light of that fact.
The Minister referred to the preliminary census report. The signs and symptoms are already known to him as a member of a certain profession and he should not have to wait for the final diagnosis which his predecessor was so anxious to have before taking action. On 8th June the Guardian said:
The dominant changes that have occurred over these past ten years, however, have been the accelerated drift of population from the coalmining and textile areas of the North and West to the Midlands and the South-East of England…
This problem is very much in the minds of civic and industrial leaders, regardless of their political association. I deplore the fact that there is no proposal in the Gracious Speech to deal with this problem, but there is still time for the Minister to recognise what is happening in the older industrial areas, of which my constituency is one. Neither the Gracious Speech nor the Minister's statement contained any proposal for dealing with this problem this year or next year. In this respect this year's Gracious Speech would have been equally applicable in the thirties.
Many hon. Members thought that the Local Employment Act would not achieve all that we desired. However, we must be candid and acknowledge that it has achieved something noticeable. To that extent both sides of the House should regard it as a worth-while piece of legislation, even though it may be negative planning. However, employment is not the only lubricant or medicine of life. There is something beyond employment. It is not nationally wise to expect young and virile people to remain in the older industrial areas if proper provision is not made for them. I am not thinking only of my own area. I am thinking of the general feeling in the older industrial areas in which it is difficult to get the professional and technical people required for the civic and

housing developments which are necessary. Housing is a problem which has as many facets and is as important as the problem of employment. If a man has been without employment it is a wonderful thing if he is provided with a job, but he has a home and a family. Our older towns badly need refurbishing. The Gracious Speech contributes nothing in this respect. During the next few months the Minister must think hard. He must ensure that in the Britain that we all want to build opportunities are evenly distributed.
I do not envy the new towns. The older towns do not envy them either. However, new towns are a good investment. Are we going to sit by and watch the cradle of our industrial system suffer greater and greater degrees of industrial fallout and finally decay? In these areas services such as schools and roads already exist. They may need renewing, but homes, places of work and know-how are already there. We should invest in these areas, because their continuing prosperity affects employment in the whole country. I hope that we do not throw completely on one side or put on the bonfire areas which have served us so well in the past. The Minister should look at the problem as a whole. He should consider the new industrial areas in the light of the old. Are there not chances of regalvanising these areas by vigorous action, by legislation and by investment in an energetic effort to keep people there?

7.28 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) said that the Government's policy was to allow people to drift away from the old towns and then supply new towns in which they may live. I represent a new town. I assure him that the people coming to the new town are much more the type of whom we have heard so much this afternoon. They have been living in desperate conditions in London. They have a chance of coming to a decent home and finding a job alongside it. I agree entirely that we must do all we can to direct industry to the old and decaying towns where the old types of industry have disappeared. The Distribution of Industry Act has helped a great deal in this respect.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is not now in


his place, because he made a very strong attack on the whole principle of landlordism. I should like to declare my interest. I am a London landlord and, had the hon. Member been here, I should very much have liked to have had this out with him. I utterly refute his suggestion that the whole of landlordism is bad and immoral.
I am quite prepared to agree that there are bad and immoral landlords, but the vast majority of us are good landlords, on friendly terms with our tenants. We feel ourselves to be in a position of responsibility and trust towards them, and we consider that we do a very fine job in providing homes for people who want to rent their homes—and, as we have heard, a very large number of people wish to rent their homes, and not to buy them.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey absolutely rejected the idea of private housing or landlordism at all. He felt that all housing must be provided by the State, although I was not at all clear whether or not any rent was to be paid. In Russia, of course, they are aiming at a position in which even rent will not be paid.
What is perfectly clear is that when there are no private houses at all committees will have to judge who shall get what home. I presume that all Members of Parliament would then apply for houses connected to the Division Bell— because that is absolutely necessary to them in their work—and would get the homes around Westminster.—[HON. MEMBERS: "What's the present test?"] The present test is one of money, and that is not a bad test. Time has proved it's worth.
Some people prefer to spend a very great deal on their homes and not a lot on anything else, while others do not mind what sort of home they have because they want to spend their money on other things. We have to recognise that the official is not the best person to judge exactly where a person should live and what sort of home he should have. That is one of the great choices before the citizen—where he is to live and how much money he is to spend on his home, and it is a choice we all have to make.
The Rent Act has been suggested as the villain of the piece—the reason why

many people are now short of a home, why there are homeless people in London and why there are great housing difficulties there. I remember that before that Act was passed the same number of people—or, perhaps, more of them— were searching for homes, but it was then said, not that the Rent Act was the villain of the piece, but that people were continuing to live in their old houses. That was marvellous for the elderly people who had been in those houses since before 1939, but the result was that young people getting married had not a hope of a house anywhere. They were in desperate straits, because everyone was staying put.
We have to recognise that someone who is renting a house has not the absolute right to stay there for ever. You, Mr. Speaker, live in a tied house, and one day you may be asked to leave. We were told a story of tremendous sadness by the hon. Member for Bermondsey about someone who was turned out of his house, but who, in fact, had no contract with the landlord to be there at all. He had scraped in as an illegal subtenant—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: No. My hon. Friend pointed out that while the man was a sub-tenant he had no legal tenure, and after the Rent Act became applicable and the old tenant died or left, the person referred to was "turfed out" of the property.

Mr. Allason: That is exactly what I was saying. The sub-tenant had no contract with the landlord to be there—

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The man had the right to be there before the Rent Act; after it, he had no such right.

Mr. Allason: No, I am sorry; he was a sub-tenant, and, therefore, not a tenant of the landlord.
The Minister has agreed that we shall need at least 6 million houses over the next twenty years. I hope that he does not intend to divide that number by the twenty and say "if we build at the rate of 300,000 houses a year for the next twenty years we are home and dry." My right hon. Friend gave every indication that he will not do that. It is essential to consider as soon as possible increasing


the number of houses being built but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby {Mr. Graham Page) has pointed out, there is a limit to our present resources. There is a limit to what the civil engineering industry can produce, and to the amount of material available. I ask the Minister to think ahead, and to consider a vast expansion of the industry and of available materials, just as was done in 1951.
It will be remembered that in 1951 the Prime Minister, as Minister of Housing, went to that Ministry with a firm intention of building 300,000 houses a year. He found that the advice being given to the Minister was that it was not possible to build more than 200,000 houses a year. My right hon. Friend then used to his advisers an old-world and courtly phrase which has recently been publicised by the Duke of Edinburgh, and they got on with the job.
I suggest now that our new Minister of Housing should try to reorganise our system so that, in the near future, we can build 400,000 houses a year. With his experience as "Radio Doctor", he may well be able to find a suitable phrase to rival that used by the Duke of Edinburgh, and stop people twiddling their thumbs. I have a very great respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister. He knows a great deal about housing; so much that he lives in my constituency.
Since 1951, we have had a very fine record of building a very Large number of houses, but I suggest that the time has now come when we might make a further step towards our target. This means examining priorities for building, and on that subject I have certain suggestions to make. First, there is the question of office building which is going on very much in London. Some of us regret it; some of us think that there is far too much of it, but we realise that office building is an extremely profitable occupation. Once planning permission for it is obtained, a lot of money is to be made in office building.
I suggest that in London and the large cities planning permission for office building should be made conditional on flats being incorporated in the design up to the limit of the density acceptable for that area. That would not produce a

great many flats, but it would produce additional flats in the area where the employment is being provided. It would be a great help, and no great hardship, on those developers who are doing quite nicely, thank you.
Secondly, I would like to see investment allowances for houses which are being built to let. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that houses to let must come from the public purse, because no one in private enterprise was prepared to build to let. That is perfectly true and it is tragic because, in the past—in the Victorian age—a vast number of houses were provided to let at reasonable rents.
Now, it is extremely difficult for a local authority to build houses to let at economic rents and the same applies to private enterprise. I am, therefore, asking that private enterprise be granted an investment allowance.

Mr, A. Lewis: A subsidy.

Mr. Allason: It is not a subsidy. It is a return on taxation borne by a particular investor. If that were done it would be possible for private enterprise to build houses to let, and that is what we all want to see.
My third suggestion—and it may seem an Irishism—is that houses in public ownership should be sold to tenants. That, one might think, would reduce the number of houses available, but the contrary is true. This is done to a certain extent in council houses where they may be sold to sitting tenants. I would like to see that extended, even to the new towns. Obviously, if the sitting tenant buys the house the subsidy to be applied to that house becomes available for another house, so then a development corporation or council can build another house for another family, where it would otherwise not do so. That, obviously, would be of great value.
The people going to new towns are often young families. They have tremendous responsibilities. They may not have had anywhere to live previously, they must obtain furniture and they may be expecting their first children. Later, they find that they can afford to start thinking about buying a house—and they desperately want to—and in many instances they would like to buy the house


in which they have been living. I ask, therefore, that the development corporations should be instructed to sell houses, grades 1 and 2, to sitting tenants who desire them so that the extra money coming to the corporations will enable them to build more houses.
We have a fine record to show, but I believe that a great deal can still be done to improve house building and, in particular, to provide more houses for letting purposes. If we can have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, two-fifths of all houses built to let, then that would be an excellent thing There is a great demand for housing in Britain and I passionately want to see more and more being built.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: When the Minister began his speech today he seemed to be asking the indulgence of the House for a maiden speech. At least in one respect I am the same as he, for I appear on this occasion in a new guise. It seems appropriate that I should, at the beginning, welcome the Minister to his new job. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that in welcoming him to his new job, I say that he is welcome to his new job.
I believe that the House of Commons will never see a worse Minister than the one whom the present Minister has succeeded. I think that the present Minister has some of the liveliness which his predecessor lacked. Yet I fear that the rich, fruity voice, that so often delighted me when I was a schoolboy in short pants, has still the same palliative effect in his present office as in the days when he was persuading many an ulcer sufferer that he merely had a bilious attack.
Today the Minister has done little more than put ointment—pink ointment, perhaps—over pale policies. Looking back over many debates on housing I find them, as the years go by, increasingly depressing. It seems that I begin my new maiden speech where I began my old one. There seems to be no point of communication between the two sides of the House.
Although we have listened to many interesting essays on the diagnosis of the present situation, and what can be done if new administrative machinery is

set up, whenever the root problems have been touched upon by my hon. Friends the only replies have been the usual bubblegum remarks that we hear —and which we heard today—from the Minister about this side being tied to dogmatisms and the Government side being free to rove like the air. But what did the Minister say in that speech of his in which he refused to be interrupted because it was so long? He said that people who wanted to own their own houses should be encouraged to do so. No one disagrees with that. He out-platitudes the "Radio Doctor". He then went on to say that the major problem, in many senses, was the price of land, but that, he said, merely expressed the shortage of land. Then he made the shattering announcement that. in spite of that, the Government intend to maintain the green belt policy.
I am a simple man and it seems to me that two problems must be faced by the Government before this House goes into vast exercises as to what can be done when the millenium is reached and how we can build all the houses we need when we have all the land. The two problems are epitomised in many senses in the two constituencies in which I have had the honour to represent in this House.
When I represented a London constituency not a week went by when, in spite of the efforts of the Government with all the administrative and legislative changes they made in the interests of their friends, I did not hear at least a dozen people complain of the misery and pitiful tragedy of their lives because of the lack of housing. There has not been a month in Warrington when the same miserable story has not been told to me. The simple fact is that in Warrington the picture is more pitiful, because Warrington has the worst record of any town in Britain for diseases of the chest. Over and over again, the miserable story of overcrowding and slum conditions is allied to a picture of material ill-health. One hears people say that the doctors have told them—and the doctors always say the same thing—"If we do not get out we will not last three years."
When I listened to what surely must be the nadir of this debate—the speech


of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason)—it seemed to me that we had reached the point at which it is plain that many hon. Members opposite do not realise the tragedy of the situation about which we are speaking. I am not referring to all hon. Members opposite. But when the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke with such self-pride and gratification at his own achievements, when there is so much tragedy allied to this picture of misery in housing, it seems to me that we have reached the point at which we are not even talking the same language.
In Warrington—indeed, in the industrial North-West generally, or wherever we find people working in semi-skilled or unskilled occupations and earning rather less than the national average—? the picture there is one of people who, unless the council builds them houses, will have to live in slums. Only this week I read in a report issued by the Warrington Borough Council that the council is still making grants to people to replace bucket lavatories with water closets. There are thousands of people living in such conditions in the North-West.
These are people who are earning £9 or £10 a week—as they tell me, after stoppages. Where then are these people to get houses? What a mockery it must sound to people like them to hear the Minister saying that people should have enough incentive, courage and guts to own their own houses. Certainly they should be encouraged to do so, but what are people who earn only relatively small wages to do when they cannot buy houses, whatever courage or guts they have?
The reality of the position is surely this. For the great mass of our people, home ownership is completely out of the question. Even if they were prepared to take the burden on their backs, no building society would take them, and few councils, thanks to the Government's policy, are in a position to do so, if they want to purchase their own houses.
I regard myself as one of the least doctrinaire of Members, and I am not passionately advocating that people should live in council houses if they can afford to buy their own. But when a man is in a position in which he has to live, as many people do, in primitive conditions, in back-to-back houses, in

houses far too small and too old, the wicked relics of the Industrial Revolution—in which, to quote a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, they were like animals creeping into their little brick boxes to propagate themselves—when people live in those conditions with no hope of escape except through the provision of housing estates such as local authorities have been building, then surely it is not doctrinaire or wrong or irrelevant of us to say to the Minister, "Please do something to make it posible for the great mass of our people who are not earning even the salaries of Members of Parliament to be able to live in decency and with dignity."
For all the fine words that the Minister used, for all the fine exercises that we have had this evening in discussions of what can be done administratively if only the means were there, all the Government are doing now is to make it impossible, by their policies, for many people to buy their houses, and tremendously difficult and in some cases almost equally impossible for the councils to supply them.
We heard a great deal in the course of past years about the tremendous increase in costs arising from the wickedness of building workers, plasterers and plumbers in demanding higher wages. At least that myth was blown up today by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) when he made it plain—nobody disputed it—that for every 1s. increase in actual costs, the Government's interest policy has laid a burden upon the local authorities of 14s. —-fourteen times the amount of increases in costs.
In addition to that, whatever may have been the faults of the Town and Country Planning Act, it was at least an honest and genuine attempt to stop runaway inflation, profiteering and speculation in land. The Government have said that nobody in Britain understood that Measure except Lord Silkin, and so they dismantled it but they put nothing in its place. The consequences have been that many local authorities, of whom we heard one instanced this afternoon, have been unable to continue with their housing programmes because the cost of an acre of land was said to be as high as £100,000.
Surely it is not unreasonable to say to the Government that if they do not like the way in which the Labour Party is proposing to make this kind of rabid speculation in land illegal, they should at least offer something as an alternative in an attempt to bring the value of land into some kind of relationship with reality. It is nonsense to say that there is nothing immoral when people who themselves have done nothing to develop land, but which has been developed entirely by the community, rake off vast sums of money. Wherever new towns are going up, the price of land immediately jumps a hundredfold. If it is not within the capacity of the Government to municipalise land, if it is said that this solves no problems and builds no houses, cannot we cream off these vast profits by some kind of capital gains tax so that the community can at least profit in that way?
If I may again quote Warrington, it is still continuing, in face of the tremendous financial difficulties which the Government have placed upon its shoulders, to try to build houses and make accommodation available to the unfortunate people among its community. Why do the Government make it so difficult, even for local authorities which are trying so hard to continue their ameliorative process and their building programmes, to get the labour which they so badly need for their building? In the North-West in particular there is a constant drain on building personnel down to the South-East. The reason is that the people who are building factories, offices and luxury flats in the South-East are able to pay much higher wages than can the local builders in Warrington and such places.
The time has surely come for the Government to make a genuine effort in place of the platitudes to which we have become accustomed and the essays which we hear read over and over again from the other side of the House. If they cannot stomach our proposals, let them put forward proposals of their own, proposals which would be directed not to pious and, in many senses, insulting exhortations—such as that we recently heard about people who have the guts to buy their own houses being encouraged to do so—but a real effort to meet the problems of costs, labour

and interest rates. These proposals should make it possible for the local authorities, which are the only authorities really doing the job, to provide houses for people who cannot afford to buy them.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) will not think it impertinent of me, bearing in mind my own short service in the House, rather shorter than his own, if I congratulate him on what might be called his second maiden speech. He knows what my majority is like. I may be in the same position as himself one day. I am sure that he must have sensed, from the way in which his speech was received, that it was much enjoyed by the House. I particularly enjoyed the remark he made, that he was one of the less doctrinaire Members of the House of Commons. The way he made his speech proved that.
It is my contention that, too often, when the subject of housing comes up, particularly when it is debated in the local authorities, too many people approach the subject from far too doctrinaire a standpoint. I say that because I wish to put to my right hon. Friend a proposal which, should it be accepted by the House, would, I think, cause hon. Members on both sides to withdraw somewhat from their previously prepared and well dug positions. Before I come to that, I wish to join with those of my hon. Friends who have congratulated my right hon. Friend on his appointment to his present responsible post and wish him well.
So that there will be no misunderstanding between hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself, I make it quite clear at the outset that I have no doubt that in many areas of the country housing conditions are deplorable and shortages are quite acute. Apart from that, there are far too many towns in the United Kingdom which are eyesores. They are horrible places, miserable looking spots. Indeed, when I come down from the North and the Midlands—I mean no offence to hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North and the Midlands—it seems to me that Euston and the Hampstead Road are like the Champs-Elysé es in comparison with the


dreadful, dreary and dismal areas which some hon. Members represent. Not that I have no shocking areas in my constituency. I have, of course.
I want to put this question of dismal housing conditions and the shortage of housing in perspective because it seems to me that one's judgment of the problem in areas of housing shortage, quite apart from one's judgment of the dismal aspect of much of our towns, depends very largely upon where one looks, the area one represents and the sort of evidence one reads. In common with many other hon. Members, I received a memorandum from the Alliance Building Society which argued that we needed in this country a programme for the building of over 400,000 houses. One read in that pamphlet a fairly frightening and dismal story. Nevertheless, I noted that the house building programme recommended was to cover a period of twenty years. I am rather distrustful of people who advocate plans covering such a long period. It is rather impracticable to suggest to any Government that they should embark on a twenty-year plan or draw up a programme based on work over twenty years. Whether they will be in office for that time is one matter to be considered.
One notices, also, that statistics or programmes based on a projection or extrapolation of statistics over a period like that have an unhappy knack of proving to be remarkably wrong. Many hon. Members have already reminded us that it was not long ago when we were saying in this country that we were a dying or decadent nation because our population was declining. That turned out not to be true. Now we are told that we shall have a housing problem more serious than that which at present exists because there will be an explosion of population. This, also, may turn out to be wrong.
Not long after I read the pamphlet from the Alliance Building Society, my eye fastened on a very interesting article in the current number of Lloyds Bank Review written by a Mr. J. Parry Lewis, lecturer in economic statistics at Manchester University. He drew a conclusion somewhat different from the conclusions in the Alliance pamphlet, and certainly very different as regards the next few years up to about 1966.
Mr. Parry Lewis in his article pointed out that, about ten years ago, we had 12 million dwellings in this country and 13 million households. There was a deficit of 1 million dwellings. He went on to say that this overall deficit in housing had virtually disappeared in this country. He drew attention to the preliminary report on the 1961 census which showed that the number of dwellings fell short of the number of households by about 54,000. I think most hon. Members will agree that that does not add up to much of a housing shortage, taking it over the whole country.

Mr. Leo Abse: What about the problem of obsolescence?

Mr. Johnson Smith: Obsolescence is a different point, I suggest. I am at the moment considering the question of shortage. As I develop my argument, if the hon. Member will be patient with me, he will understand that I am prepared to concede that there are places where serious shortages exist. Mr. Parry Lewis in his article went on to say that he thought that there were two regions in the United Kingdom, as opposed to areas within regions, which did have a housing shortage, one, South Wales—

Mr. Abse: Hear, hear.

Mr. Johnson Smith: —I thought the hon. Gentleman would agree about that —and the other, London and the southeast counties, where the number of households exceeds the number of dwellings by as much as 250,000, a sizeable amount.
Several hon. Members have said already that the demand for new housing has a very close relation to the increase in the number of marriages taking place, and they have gone on to say that there has been an increase in the number of marriages. People get married younger, the population is increasing, and in the next few years we can expect the trend to continue.
The article to which I have referred does not confirm that point. In fact, the contrary. Bearing in mind that the birth rate during the early 1940s—in 1940 and 1941—was remarkably low, we can expect the number of marriages in the next few years to decline rather than to grow. Indeed, during the years 1958 and 1959, the number of marriages fell


to a level lower than that which prevailed just before the war, to about 400,000 per annum.
One can go further. In 1958 and 1959, the latest years for which I have statistics, the number of houses built was probably more than twice as great as the increase in the number of households, even if a generous allowance is made for an increase in the number of single people wishing to live alone.
The conclusion which I at any rate draw from evidence of that sort, which I cannot ignore, is that, assuming that the population will increase between now and 1980, assuming that there will be more people getting married between now and 1980, one cannot assume that the number of people getting married each year will increase in every year or series of years between now and 1980. The first assumption, then, that I make in my approach to the housing shortage is that, speaking for the country as a whole, between now and 1966 there will not be a significant increase in demand for new housing because the marriage rate will have declined below the rate prevailing in the 1950s. In other words, we shall have a breathing space.
That is for the country as a whole, but, as I said earlier, I do not ignore the fact that, apart from regions, there are areas which are very badly affected. My constituency is one of them. The borough council in my constituency has produced an imaginative scheme within the framework of present legislation to try to tackle the problem of the waiting list, which seems to be as large as ever. I cannot help feeling that if other councils introduced such schemes they might be able to hold out greater hope to the people in their areas of being rehoused.
I should like to enlarge on the proposals put forward by the St. Pancras Borough Council, not necessarily because I want to be parochial, but to show that within the existing legislation councils can do more than they are doing. I do not refer to rent rebate schemes and things of that sort. My council believes that it might be able to encourage private landlords on a large scale to convert their property with the aid of Exchequer grants and local authority loans. With this in mind, it thought that, in order to encourage a

private landlord to modernise his property, it would be necessary for it to purchase the property into which the landlord's tenant could be decanted while he could get on with the job of modernising the property and then the tenant, who would have the security of tenure which he had previously, could go back when the job was finished.
In addition, because it realises that this cannot be tackled on a piecemeal basis, this council wants a house-to-house canvass to try to get the scheme organised on a comprehensive basis. It also reserves the right, I think rightly, that if one landlord holds out it will use compulsory powers.
Secondly—and this is the imaginative part of the scheme which is open to any council in the country—it wishes to encourage the formation of non-profit housing societies and housing cooperatives. I should remind hon. Members that it is a Tory council which is proposing this scheme. By forming cooperatives, the council hopes to attract people who desire to rent accommodation with an element of ownership. The essential part of such a scheme is to find a sponsor. In this respect, this council has been remarkably successful. It has found a very powerful private organisation which is willing to undertake the purchase and redevelopment of a site and to transfer the completed dwellings to a board of directors appointed by the prospective shareholder tenants.
All that can be accomplished within the framework of present legislation, but very few councils are getting down to the problem in the way proposed by my council. If more did so, we should have heard a less dismal story than the one that we have heard this evening. I appreciate also that in certain areas even more imagination and drive is needed than that shown by the St. Pancras Borough Council.
The first problem which needs tackling relentlessly in London, despite the London County Council Development Plan, is that of density. I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that this problem can be exaggerated, but I cannot help feeling that our densities are far too low.
The average number of people per acre in the County of London is eighty-five. There are areas in Lewisham,


which is hardly in the countryside, which were permitted densities of seventy persons per acre, but in the quinquennial review of the County of London Development Plan the London County Council suggests knocking it down to fifty. It seems to me that this is an absolutely crazy reversal of policy. By restricting the number to fifty little hope is offered to anyone who wishes to develop a site commercially which is so close to the heart of a great capital. It is essential that there should be a radical and drastic revision in an upward direction of London's densities.
Secondly—here I speak very parochially—I cannot help but resent the way in which policy about offices has been conducted in the past decade. It should have been much tougher. There are trends towards toughness now, but this policy smacks, at least concerning one end of my constituency, of closing the stable door after the horse is gone. The planning authorities should insist that, if it is proposed to build an office block of more than a certain number of storeys, people should be permitted to live on top. I remember that when I suggested this as a member of a London County Council in about 1955 I was accused of wanting mixed development. as though it was something immoral. The County of London plan was that people should live in one area and work in another. Take Holborn, for example. It is a desert at night. In eight years, we have had 15,000 new commuters who suffocate in the subway. The roads are crowded in the day and this contributes to the carnage on the roads. The place is a hub of activity during the day, and it has made an absolute mess of the plan.
I should like to make one proposal about office development. It arises out of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which allowed office blocks to be built on sites which had been occupied by old office blocks. They were permitted to have a cubic capacity 10 per cent. greater than that of the old block. This is one reason why office blocks have become so large. The old office blocks had high ceilings, so that in the new ones ceilings were made lower. Builders could then build upwards, and outwards.
I respect the need for more office accommodation. If industries and factories expand, it is only right that the administration of businesses should also

have the right to expand and that workers on the administrative side of business and industry should have the right to enjoy more modern working conditions. While appreciating that, however, there is no doubt in my mind that we have been far too lax in this respect.

Mr. G, A. Pargiter: Surely the 10 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred has nothing to do with the building of new office accommodation. That could have been added without planning consent.

Mr. Johnson Smith: That only makes the matter worse. I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman said. All I know is that where a new office block has been built on an old office block site the cubic capacity has been increased by 10 per cent.
A third point which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend is this. I hope that in the task which lies ahead of him he will recognise the need for the creation of a new organisation which will enable whole areas in the heart of our big cities to be dealt with on a comprehensive basis. We all know that too often in our cities development takes place on a piecemeal basis. Some people will argue that there is no need to create a new organisation, saying that we should just leave it to the local authorities, that they will do the job and that all they need is lower interest rates and bigger subsidies. Armed with compulsory powers, they could go ahead and get on with the job.
There are arguments, against that approach. First, to rely on compulsory purchase orders, as local authorities do, in order to develop areas comprehensively is an elaborate and cumbersome method. It would involve local authorities in very heavy capital expenditure which is unacceptable from the point of view of the ratepayers. It would involve a very steady increase in rates. It would involve councils in varying but considerable interest charges. Also, it would invite local authorities, if they are to be encouraged to go in for comprehensive development in the centres of our cities, to lock up their capital over long periods. Their accounting methods are not geared to that as they are on a yearly basis.
Also, it would be disapproved of by many people because it would amount


to inviting local authorities to become involved in speculative enterprises. Many people argue that it is not right to use rate revenues on such a scale for such purpose. Also, many people argue— this is a political objection put forward by many of my hon. Friends, and I share their view—that it is not healthy for our society to leave it all to the local authorities, because that would result in the municipalisation of land and ownership by one group.
I know that some people argue to the contrary and say that private enterprise companies should be allowed to do the job. There are objections to that policy, too. Very few companies could afford to develop areas in cities on a comprehensive scale. Secondly, having no powers of compulsory purchase, they would be involved in lengthy negotiation. What would happen if individual holders of freeholds refused to cooperate? They could hold up a private developer to ransom.
With these difficulties in mind, I am particularly attracted to the proposal set out in the summary conclusions of the Civic Trust Conference held in July, 1960. This proposed the setting up of a land finance corporation, to begin with pump-primed with a Treasury float, to buy and hold all land compulsorily acquired for the purpose of comprehensive development. The corporation would have the power to re-sell the land either to a local authority or to private enterprise for redevelopment.
A number' of advantages are claimed for this method of approach. First, it would bridge the gap between the purchase and disposal of a site ripe for redevelopment. Secondly, it could certainly do it without overburdening the rates. Thirdly, areas could be developed without unnecessarily disturbing the balance between public and private ownership in a certain area.
Fourthly, it would enable local authorities to acquire the land that they really need for reshaping road patterns or developing the amenities of a city. On occasions, in order to carry out the job of town planning and reshaping roads, local authorities have had to buy property which they did not actually need. Fifthly, an appealing point is that profits made on the re-sell of sites by

the corporation could be used for redevelopment elsewhere, including areas which are not commercially attractive.
It seems to me that in considering such a proposal one might also consider the possibility of allowing local authorities to invest in such a corporation. I do not see why we should not consider encouraging owners of private property whose freeholds have been subjected to compulsory purchase orders also to invest in such a corporation.
In a nutshell, I think the proposal acts on three principles—one buys, one develops and one leases. I think it could be made to work, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it. It would have the salutary effect of taking a great deal of politics out of the question of urban renewal and the comprehensive redevelopment of our cities. For that reason alone, I would hope that we should get a far greater degree of progress and more vim into the vexed question of overcoming the housing shortages which exist, as I maintain, in certain selected areas.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: This is a United Kingdom debate, but I was beginning to wonder whether it was or not.

Mr. E. G. Willis: This is the first time that we have heard the voice of Scotland in it.

Mr. Manuel: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) recognised in the early part of his speech that there are some awful slums in the country. As he belongs to Glasgow, I was surprised that he did not mention the slums there. There are also slums in the middle of England and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—vast problems, with which he was trying to deal.
There has been a great difference in the contributions from the two sides of the House. I do not say that hon. Members opposite lack sincerity or knowledge, but it seemed to me that there was a lack of feeling on their part. Their speeches have been delivered as very nice essays, very correctly and properly. They have been very nice to listen to if good English is all that matters. But to my hon. Friends and myself the housing problem is of


much greater significance than the way we deliver our sentiments about it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned with pride that his borough council had a great new scheme, and he thought it would be much better if other councils planned as well as his council does. Having had many years in local government, I can tell the hon. Member that it is not for want of schemes, plans and planning that we do not get on with housing. It is want of the will to tackle the job as it ought to be tackled.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) spoke of the inability of private enterprise to build houses. It showed how grossly out of touch he was with the problem when he suggested that private enterprise firms should be paid an investment allowance so that they might build houses to rent. It ought to be recognised on both sides of the House that it is private enterprise throughout the country which builds houses, whether for rent or for sale, because only a small proportion of local authorities have direct labour schemes, and there are very few in Scotland. As local authorities employ private enterprise firms to build their houses, this approach to get rented houses built is wrong. The local authorities do the job by employing firms, and that is where, in my opinion, these private enterprise firms should be operating in present circumstances.
In my opinion, our greatest social need in Scotland is still in the provision of houses, and it is still as great a challenge in this year as ever it has been. I have been rather amused today at the appeals we have had from each side of the House that we should take this great question of housing out of politics. It may be a trite thing to say. But can we? The whole of the provision of local authorities' houses is regulated by political Acts—the amount of subsidies they get; the number of houses local authorities can afford to build; the cost of interest rates which are laid down by the Government; cuts in subsidies—and the price of land, as one of my hon. Friends says.
So we really cannot take this question out of politics, whether we like it or not. We have got to do this job, recognising clearly, as I do from my years in local government and my years in this House, that the povision of

houses for the people who need them most is much more difficult under a Tory Government than it is under a Government formed by hon. Members on this side of the House.
In Scotland, as I say, housing is our greatest social need. I estimate that we have still 270,000 unfit houses in Soot-land. I estimate that we have 200,000 people on the waiting lists of all local authorities. Then we come to the Government's repeated prating about Glasgow overspill, and they are talking about 300,000 families needing houses. So we get an overall problem of needing some 700,000 houses. I am prepared to admit to the Secretary of State that these figures may overlap a bit. I am told that there is a bit of overlapping between the overcrowding figures and those of the numbers of people Who may be shifted under overspill arrangements, but, no matter how we view this, by and large these figures are true, and there is no mistake about this, that still in this year, 1961, Scotland is one of the worst-housed nations—I say deliberately—in Europe.
The Government really are not facing this problem. We get stop and go, and stop-gap arrangements; we get cuts here and we get cuts there; we have our local authorities being impeded in practically every effort they make to get on with solving the problem in their own areas.
Let us consider the number of houses built, while remembering the problem as it is and as I have illustrated it with the figures I have just given. From all sources in Scotland, housing association and every sort of building we can bring into the picture, we produced, in 1955, 34,069 houses. With the problem still as large—and growing, in my opinion—we produced in 1960 only 28,592 houses. In the first three-quarters of 1961 we have built only 22,011 houses, and I do not see the next 6,000 or 7,000 houses being produced in the last quarter to bring this year's figures even with last year's. That is not tackling the problem. That is the progress under Toryism—progress backwards, with the need still as large.
When we consider the local authorities, the people who are really providing the houses for those in the most need, we see the picture is even blacker. In 1955, the local authorities built for


the people in need 24,210 houses; last year, 1960, the number was down to 17,913 houses, a disgraceful picture; and in the first nine months of this year, we have built only 12,000 houses, and I do not see the other 6,000 houses going up to bring the year's figure to equal last year's figure
I want to put some questions to the Minister. I do not think that there will be a chance for another back bench Scot to get into this debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will take his corner and pose certain questions —although I have not consulted him— and that we shall ask questions of considerable scope. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to reply to them.
What proportions of the materials available and building trade workers available are employed on local authority house-building and what are the proportions employed on private work? I would mention particularly offices and garages. There seems to be a rash of these things springing up all over the country. It is time that the Government did something about this blatant evasion of tax by oil companies which are ladling out money to provide not garages as we know them, but filling stations which do not even have a pit for the examination of cars. Even fair Ayrshire, the land of Burns, with its scenic beauties, and Renfrewshire as well, have been destroyed by these filling stations with their gaudy colours and bright lights. I agree that a proportion of these materials and a number of building workers have also been employed on private house building, but I will return to that later.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the size of the houses which are now being built. There is here an internal Government saving. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his speeches on housing, has been attacking municipal tenants and local authorities, a long-suffering race. One would think that local authority tenants were doing something immoral. The public spirit and selfless devotion of the vast majority of local councillors and county councillors go by the board when the right hon. Gentleman is talking about houses.

They are not doing enough, apparently, to carry out his pet plan which would put up rents. However, there is a Bill affecting housing in Scotland to come before the House before very long and I must save a certain amount of verbal ammunition for that occasion.
I should like to give the figures for the provision of various types of houses in Scotland for the years 1957 to 1960. Of all the houses built in Scotland in 1957, 291 per cent. were four-apartment houses and 2 per cent. were five-apartment. In 1960, the proportions were 22·5; per cent. four-apartment and 1·6; per cent. five-apartment. The percentages of three-apartment houses were 58·2; in 1957, 61·0; in 1958, 58·5; in 1959 and 57·7; in 1960.
The two-apartment houses are the bane of Scotland and they are the cause of the gross overcrowding which has created most of the problems from which we are suffering in the larger cities. They were built by private enterprise, which is so much lauded by the Secretary of State. In 1957, they represented 9·12 per cent. of housebuilding. In 1958, the percentage was 11. In 1949, it was 14 per cent. and in 1960, 14·5. I dare say that a fair proportion of them were local authority houses.
Where they meet the needs of single persons and old couples who desire that kind of accommodation I am all for them, but I should like to be told the number of local authority houses, mainly three-apartment and two-apartment which are today overcrowded and what regard is being paid by the Government to this internal local authority problem in ascertaining the number of houses needed in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will try to get some information about that.
I have already mentioned the higher interest rates. Does the Minister intend to do anything about them? They are visibly impeding the construction of local authority houses in Scotland. What is in his mind for the future? Is the interest rate to run at 7 per cent, for ever and ever? Further, will he state the number of local authorities in Scotland who are not building any houses this year?
Just to show how the right hon. Gentleman's mind functions in connection with the provision of houses, I want


to quote from a speech he made when the Scottish Grand Committee was debating the Scottish Estimates on 30th June, 1960. He then said:
Hon. Members opposite have made a good deal of argument—and did again this morning —of the fact that completions have fallen in recent years and attribute that to some wicked influence on the part of the Government. As usual, they are wrong. There is a realistic and natural explanation of what is happening. In the first place, part of the rundown reflects the fact that housing needs in some places have been largely met."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 30th June, 1960; c. 167.]
I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman: I say that the problem is still there, and that it looms as large as ever. He believes in dealing with it piecemeal, and spasmodically. If it is true that the position in certain areas has been cleared up, and there are no more houses to build there—although I do not know of any in that position— should not he be considering a national plan for Scotland, so that as the need falls off in certain areas arrangements can be made to carry out the work in those areas which are still faced with a grave problem, such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and other large Scottish cities? He should be trying to evolve a plan to tackle the problem realistically.
The right hon. Gentleman' reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), in the Scottish Estimates debate on 4th July of this year, shows the way in which the Secretary of State's mind is operating. Referring to my hon. Friend, he said:
The hon. Member pointed out that the rate of building by local authorities had fallen, and so it has, by 752 houses last year, but private enterprise building increased by 2,297 houses last year and, taking agencies into account, there was a net increase of 1,299 houses completed in Scotland between 1959 and 1960. I am quite certain that it is a healthy development that private enterprise should meet a larger proportion of our needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 4th July, 1961; c. 14.]
Does not this pinpoint the colossal ineptitude of the Secretary of State? The great need in Scotland is for houses to rent. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that 2,297 houses were built, but they were built for sale. I challenge him: has even as much as 1 per cent. of all the housing built in Scotland in the post-war years been to rent?
I am not against people having their own houses, or building their own

houses, but if the Minister is to draw away from local authority housebuilding to provide the things that I listed earlier, such as garages and offices, and private houses built for those who can afford to buy them, let him remember that the pool of labour doing the two jobs is the same, and that he will not get the houses to rent that we need to relieve the festering slums in our cities. There are hundreds of thousands of unfit houses yet to be dealt with and tens of thousands of people live in greatly overcrowded conditions. Tens of thousands of people live in small rooms which have been sublet.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is bound to be aware of the concern of medical officers of health that so many families suffering from tuberculosis and similar diseases have to live in these insanitary conditions. When members of local authorities or medical officers are approached by such people and asked whether it is possible for them to obtain other accommodation the only answer which can be given in so many cases is, "According to your place in the housing queue you may get a house in about twenty years' time." That is the size of the problem. Is it any wonder that I ask for a national plan from the Secretary of State in order to mitigate such injustice?
Hundreds of thousands of families living in such conditions are anxious to obtain municipal houses, but are not able and will not be able to rent such accommodation. I hope 'that in this debate, which is preliminary to the discussions we shall have when the Minister's new Bill is presented to us, we have been able to draw his attention to some of the problems. This has been a debate referring largely to conditions in England, but I hope that my contribution will make an impact on the Scottish Office and result in some improvement in conditions in Scotland.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Brian Batsford: I cannot claim to be a Scot, but I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) as it reminds me of the voices of my Scottish ancestors.

Mr. John Rankin: They got houses.

Mr. Batsford: We have been concerned with a number of shortages in London and in the country and I wish to refer to the broader aspect of the question of land usage, especially from the point of view of town and country planning. Whatever the scale and scope of the housing problem, which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) described as involving the building of 5 million or 6 million houses in the next twenty years, the land on which the houses must be built can be provided only by eating more and more into the countryside or by using land already built on. In other words, using land which is either new or second-hand.
The use of new land can mean only the provision of new towns or the extension of existing towns, which would make the transport situation far more difficult. The second alternative would mean a great deal of redevelopment of our towns and cities, what my right hon. Friend referred to today as "urban renewal", It was very good to hear those words rolling off his tongue. We are concerned not only with city centres but also with those indefinable areas, half town and half suburb, which exist around our large conurbations. These wasting and decaying areas of land, a hang-over from poor development and planning, should provide much of the housing space which we need today.
As the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) knows very well, mile after mile of single-storey shops stretch between his constituency and mine, together with disused buildings and industrial buildings. These provide the greatest possible opportunity for redevelopment but they are more difficult, much more difficult, to develop than the virgin countryside, which is so often advertised by that ghastly phrase, "Ripe for development". It is the sour areas which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider developing.
Urban development involves three main questions, ownership, planning, and design. Each depends on the other. We cannot have good design without planning, and we cannot have good planning without single or consolidated ownership—for specifically designed areas.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The hon. Member is probably coming on to it, but will he not agree

that in addition to the ownership of the area, ownership en masseand planning to get the design, there may be a financial consideration, and local authorities —because of annual public accountability—find it very difficult?

Mr. Batsford: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I know and respect his views on town and country planning, but I was coming to that point. Powers for compulsory purchase are already there in the local authorities, but they are rendered virtually useless by this question of heavy capital investment. That, I think, is the point he was making.
This applies, in particular, to the valuable and commercial business centres which have been mentioned already by several hon. Members in this debate. I think and hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider the question which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), of either a Land Finance Corporation or some form of public trust. There is no doubt that if we do not have comprehensive planning, which single ownership is bound to imply, we shall surrender all our cities to the ghastly disgrace of piecemeal development which they have at the moment.
I know that piecemeal development might have had relatively little effect in our old towns and villages. There we are apt to say it is all pleasant and accidental. That may be so. Some of our streets and vistas are attractive and they are accidental, but they were designed in those early days for a certain purpose and function which they fulfilled. It does not follow today that just because they were able to achieve that by accident we should tolerate any sort of haphazard development in the hope that we shall achieve the same result. Today, that would be an entirely mistaken idea and a completely pious hope, because we live in an age when proper planning and large-scale planning are absolutely imperative. The City of London, as rebuilt after the war, is a monument to neglected opportunities and also to planning inertia.

Mr. James McInnes: Under a Tory Government.

Mr. Batsford: Actually, it was under a London County Council controlled by the Socialist Party.
Must we, for lack of this planning, permit our streets to become vast through-ways for traffic? Must we allow each city centre to have pedestrians, urban dwellers and shoppers railed off so that this traffic can go through and keep moving fast, as the Minister of Transport would say? Why can we not have precincts in our city centres, places where people can shop and live in peace and quiet and from where traffic is banned altogether?
What sort of town planning allowed that brick wall behind the church of All Souls, Langham Place? What sort of town planning allowed that great concrete cliff as one looks up Whitehall? What sort of planning has allowed the dismemberment of the eighteenth-century squares in London, such as Manchester Square, Portman Square, and Cavendish Square, until there will soon be none left? It is not only London but other cities which are fast succumbing to this dreary fate, simply because whatever planning authority exists is not exercising the power which it possesses or providing the directive and the inspiration which the situation demands.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how many of the 400,000 planning proposals which his Department receives every year are part and parcel of local authority development plans and how many of them have to go through that expensive, frustrating and in some cases face-saving sieve of a public inquiry, often initiated, no doubt, by the local preservation or amenity society. I am not against preservation. I am all for preservation in the right place. But I have no wish to see Britain preserved as a museum piece, rather like the way in which it is portrayed in the advertisements of the British Travel and Holidays Association. I have no wish to see this perpetuated or even extended with a pseudo-Tudor and pseudo-Georgian pastiche.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how much of our country is reserved for preservation, in areas, in entities and in units. I do not mean scheduled by the National Trust, but scheduled by my right hon. Friend in conjunction with other authorities, in order that we may keep unspoiled specific worthy examples of our heritage as part of a national plan. Or are only

individual buildings earmarked for this purpose? Are only individual buildings preserved, even when their surroundings and environments, which are certainly an important part of them, are utterly incongruous? I have often felt, in such a case, that if a small building has to be preserved, why should we not follow the Scandinavian method and move it bodily, placing it in a part with others in what is called an old town, thus making an outdoor museum?
It seems strange that the responsibility for preserving buildings in this country is so decentralised and divided. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is responsible for ancient monuments, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is responsible for the classification of historic buildings, and when the question of the demolition of the Coal Exchange arose as a result of a road widening scheme, it was not a question for the Minister of Transport, but one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. But when it is a question of the Euston portico, it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Is it not possible for one Department to decide what to destroy and what not to destroy?
When he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said on 5th May last year that planning was concerned not only with where buildings should go but with what they looked like. He added that any form of design dictatorship would be death. Sometimes when I look across the river and see that monolithic tombstone on the other side of the Thames I wonder whether British architecture has not already one foot in the grave. We do not want dictatorship in design. Buildings cannot be designed by Government Departments or by Committees.
In this country, we have a very large number of first-class architects. All they lack is the freedom to express themselves. They are too hampered by restrictions, and they lack the more comprehensive planning to which I have referred. I also suspect that far too many of our buildings are not designed by architects at all. Surely my right hon.
Friend would hesitate before he recommended one of his patients to go to an unqualified doctor. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Maybe he would not. But in spite of the fact that some amateur doctors and amateur architects have been successful, I think it better to keep building as the responsibility of fully-qualified architects.
I hope that, in a debate principally devoted to housing, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will not mind my finishing on this point. I know that my right hon. Friend is also responsible for such things as outdoor advertising and litter. Far the worst litter is not the wrapping paper that we find in the streets, but the permanent litter of badly-designed, poorly-planned housing development, accompanied by the excrescence of street furniture which we see all over the place. I suggest that the answer is that it is not enough to send comparatively mild directives to local authorities, because the time has come in town and country planning when we want stronger measures. The whole future of Britain and the countryside is involved, and if we do not do these things now we may well find that very soon it will be too late.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: We have had an excellent debate today, as I am sure the Government Front Bench will agree. Many constructive speeches have been made on both sides of the House, but I hope that I shall be permitted to say that hon. Members opposite in their speeches have been, by and large, on the periphery of this great social problem, whereas my hon. Friends have invariably got to the core of the problem, namely, that we need greatly to increase the supply of houses. That is not an unfair criticism, because, for the most part, hon. Members opposite did not seek to show the way in which we could increase the number of houses, whereas my hon. Friends did precisely that.
Unfortunately, we have been denied the advice of the Liberal Party in this debate. No member of the Liberal Party has been present at any time during the whole of the debate. That is strange from a party which is claiming at present to be so representative of the rising

generation, which is playing an increasing part in local government and which is getting so much publicity in the by-elections. I should have thought that, since the Minister who opened the debate is a renegade Liberal, as is the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up for the Government—we have not had a pure Tory speaking for the Tory Government—this was just the occasion when the Liberal Party might have made its presence felt in the debate.
The Minister made far and away the worst and the least constructive speech in the debate. He paid tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) who opened the discussion. He commented on my hon. Friend's calculation that about 150,000 houses a year were needed to replace older, unfit houses. The The Minister put the figure at 160,000 a a year. He was not to be beaten by my hon. Friend. Having said that he would put the figure at 160,000 a year, he did not tell us of any plans that he had to increase the rate of demolition and replacement beyond the figure of 60,000 a year which is the present rate. That is a very strange omission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
He dismissed all that my hon. Friend said about the effect of the Rent Act as if it just did not matter and as if it Was somehow or other irrelevant to the great housing problem. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that somehow or other the Rent Act was irrelevant to the problem of homeless families in London, the Midlands, Glasgow and other congested parts of the country. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have a little more to say than his right hon. Friend about the relevance or otherwise of the Rent Act.
It was rather odd that the right hon. Gentleman could agree so wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's diagnosis of our present ills and could repudiate so completely the cures which my hon. Friend prescribed. I wondered what comment I would make on the right hon. Gentleman's speech by the time he sat down, when one of my hon. Friends put into my hand a note which suggested to me that perhaps Hilaire Belloc summed up the Minister's speech


better than any of us here could when he wrote:
Physicians of the utmost fame
Were called at once; but when they came
They answered, as they took their fees,
'There is no cure for this disease'.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly admitted that there was a disease, but he had no cure to offer, no remedy, no suggestions.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted in the course of his speech that over 4 million existing houses were built before 1880. The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) said that the Minister of Works was responsible for ancient monuments. He was wrong. The Minister of Housing is the one who is responsible for replacing ancient monuments.

Mr. Willis: And the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister of Housing has not been long enough in the job to get down to it. Perhaps we shall hear some of the remedies proposed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is important to get this problem into perspective and realise that 4 million of our stock of houses—one-quarter of the total —were built before 1880. It is important to realise that every year 150,000 houses become 100 years old. Most of them are lacking in modern amenities. Only an infinitesimal proportion of them will ever be dealt with by these improvement schemes. The Minister gave us the figures of current works being done under these schemes. He will agree that they only touch the fringe of this colossal number of houses, but in any case a great many of them are not worth treating in this way. They are not worth replacing.
A study of the figures indicates that my hon. Friend's request for the replacement of about 150,000 houses a year is much too modest. I do not know whether he included our Scottish needs in his figures. It is reasonable at this time to aim at replacing 200,000 to 250,000 of these houses every year. If one adds to that the number of homeless families, the number of families living doubled up with sub-tenancies and living in a single room, and if one bears in mind the expanding population and takes into account marriages at an

earlier age, it is self-evident that we should be aiming at a far higher output of houses than anything which has been contemplated up to now.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) said that in the next few years the marriage rate will decline. He could not have been more wrong. The Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been worried for many years about the post-war birth-rate bulge coming through the primary schools and getting into the secondary modern and grammar schools where it is now. In another three or four years this age group will be married.
This is not a funny business; it will make very much worse a problem that is of very serious proportions today. I should have thought that now, in the 1960s, we really should be raising our sights and looking forward to building about 500,000 houses a year in Great Britain as a whole—and most of these houses will require to be built for letting, and most of them will require to be built by local authorities.
I do not want to dwell at length on the Scottish problem, but the Secretary of State knows that, apart from the 4 million existing houses in England that were built before 1880, we have in Scotland about 510,000 houses that were built before then. He knows, too, that almost all of those are houses of one and two rooms; that, of course, they do not have baths or inside toilets; that, for the most part, they do not have hot and cold water —or, indeed, an independent water supply at all. He knows, too, that these houses will never be modernised and made fit for people to live in decently at the present time.
It became all too clear in the Minister's speech that Her Majesty's Ministers are far more concerned with getting more profit for the speculators than getting more houses for the people. Only some eight years ago capital expenditure on housing amounted to a little over £400 million.
We see how that figure has come down when we look at the White Paper, "Public Investment in Great Britain". There we see that in 1959–60 the total figure for Great Britain was £287 million and that the approved estimated capital expenditure on housing for 1962–63 is down to


£272 million—a drop of £15 million on top of this great fall from the £400 million of only eight years ago— and that at a time when we still have rising prices and rising costs, so that all the other public services are going up.
The total for public services over the same period from 1959–60 to 1962–63 will go up from £735 million to £925 million— an increase of £190 million. As I say, the housing figure goes down by £15 million and, as the Secretary of State well knows, the Scottish figures account for the only fall there is between 1960–61 and 1961–62. Apparently, two-thirds of the English figure will remain steady, while the Scottish figure comes down by £1 million in that period.
My hon. Friends have said much about the high interest rates, about which the Minister said very little. Let me remind the Minister, particularly in the presence of the Prime Minister, what has happened in the years of Conservative power since 1951. In 1952 the Tories started putting up interest rates, but since the present Prime Minister was then the Minister responsible for housing, and was enjoying certain preferences within the Cabinet, he got an increased subsidy to compensate for the increased interest rates at that time. After he left that Ministry, the interest rates kept on going up but the subsidies came down—and they have continued to come down, while the interest rates have continued to go up.
When the Prime Minister was the Minister responsible for housing and he gave local authorities increased subsidies to compensate for increased interest rates, of course he got more houses built. Local authorities had to pay higher interest rates for all the other services. So they concentrated their efforts on building houses during that period. That went on for a few years, but when the interest rates went up the output of houses went down and, over the years, the cost of financing houses has doubled.
There is an overwhelming case for preferentially low interest rates for housing, and I hope that the Government will give this matter sympathetic and serious consideration. There is also an overwhelming case for preferentially higher subsidies for local authorities with large slum clearance problems. It cannot be right to ignore the size of the slum clearance

problem of some of our larger local authorities and to pay the same kind of subsidy whether for slum clearance or costly development as for easier development on the perimeter.
At the end of his speech the Minister gave the usual, rather foolish knock by saying, "We did better than the postwar Labour Government." The Secretary of State has said that over and over again, and I will not waste the time of the House by making this useless kind of comparison, except to say that from the end of the war until 1951 Britain had the best house building record of all the countries of Western Europe. We were the best. Now let us compare what this Government—this lot here-—are doing compared with other countries in Europe in the provision of new dwellings.
For my figures I have consulted the report on housing trends by the Economic Commission for Europe. So that I would not be unfair to hon. Gentlemen opposite I have not taken a period of one or three months or one year, but three years; from 1958 until 1960. I am absolutely fair to hon. Gentlemen opposite in that I have not taken—I can give the total number of houses built in different countries if it is required—the overall figures, but I think the better comparison is to see how many houses they built and how many we built per thousand of the population. Over this three-year period France put up 20·6; dwellings per 1,000 inhabitants. The Netherlands put up 22·9; per 1,000, Norway 22·5;, Sweden 26·8; and West Germany—they lost the war incidentally— 30·5; dwellings per 1,000 inhabitants. Where does the United Kingdom come? We built 16·8;—easily the bottom of the league.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that the war was fought over Germany and that Germany probably suffered more than did we and that they would therefore be replacing houses at a faster rate. Some would say that that is why they can build twice as many houses a year as we do, relative to the population. I do not believe that that is the answer. In any case, Sweden was not involved in the war. In fact, Sweden started this period as probably the best-housed country in Europe. Yet that country has built about nine houses per 1,000 inhabitants per year while we are


building a little over five houses per 1,000 inhabitants per year.
It cannot be that this Government are using our manpower resources so heavily, to put them into the manufacturing industries to supply the export trade, because the Germans are beating us there as well. We are, in fact, doing less well than any other country in Western Europe in the supply of new houses, except Belgium. We are not quite at the bottom of the league. Belgium just keeps us from being at the bottom. When I was asking for 500,000 houses a year, if anyone thought that I was asking for the impossible, I would point out that I was asking for a little less than West Germany has been doing in recent years. In that country they have been building more than 500,000 a year, and if we were building at the same rate we, too, would have been building more than 500,000 houses a year. If we were to do just as well as Sweden and built about nine houses per 1,000 inhabitants a year, we would require a build something like 450,000 a year.
Is there any reason why we in the United Kingdom should not do as well as those other countries in Western Europe in supplying the houses we need? Does the Secretary of State for Scotland appreciate that his noble Friend the Minister of State has been going about Scotland in recent years saying that Scottish housing is the worst to be found anywhere in Western Europe? Of course, the Secretary of State's performance in building new houses is the worst in Europe. It is about time that we were really getting down seriously to satisfying the housing needs of this country.
A lot has been said about the cost of building land. The Minister did not really think this was important, and, in any case, there was nothing that he could do about it. As some of my hon. Friends have said, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have complained that the post-war Town and Country Planning Acts introduced by Lord Silkin were unworkable and could not be understood. I do not believe that at all. I think it was because they could be understood that they had to be repealed.
In any case, having repealed those Acts, the Minister has put nothing at all in their place. So many examples have been given of profiteering in land that it is not for me to waste the time of the House by giving more examples, but the Minister and the Secretary of State must know that in recent years, and in these last three or four years in particular, many plots of land have been changing hands at prices five, eight, ten and twelve times what they were only three, four or five years ago. This cannot be right. It is bound to make the provision of new houses more costly. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether this can go on. Are the Government not going to take any steps at all to curb the profiteers?
The Minister may remember that in one of his election broadcasts a few elections ago—the 1951 General Election, I believe—he talked about "throwing a planner in the works". It was the Socialists, of course, who at that time were guilty of throwing a planner in the works. Today I wondered whether he had been converted to the desirability of having a planner introduced into the works. He certainly has not got the works working very well. He personally is not responsible for this because he has just arrived at the Ministry, but he is surrounded by a lot of guilty men in this matter, and if he can do anything at all to get this planner dropped back to help us to get housing better planned and to get an increase in the supply of houses, particularly for the people who need them most, he will do a very useful job for the nation.
The Prime Minister has been forecasting that in ten years time the workers will have £20 a week, or £1,000 a year. He must know, and every hon. Gentleman opposite must know, that the present Government's housing policy would have relevance only if the average worker in this country at this present moment had at least £1,000 a year at present-day prices because only then would the worker have the ability, not the guts or the courage which was talked about earlier, to provide his own home.
However, inasmuch as the Prime Minister thinks that it will be another ten years before the worker has £1,000 a year, between now and then the Government ought to do a little more to


enable the local authorities to provide the houses which ought to be there for the millions of people who are living in those ancient monuments about which the Minister himself spoke. The local authorities must do this job. They are producing only about two-fifths of our houses now, or perhaps a little less. They are doing rather better in Scotland, not because the local authorities are encouraged to do better there but because private enterprise does not have the same rich pickings in Scotland as it has in other parts of the United Kingdom.
We have had a little discussion about the distribution of industry, and the Minister wondered why we should criticise the Government fox having failed in that desirable policy. Then he went on to tell us about the long-term problems in London and the south-eastern counties and the Midlands of England reaching up to Merseyside. What he was really saying was that the Government had not learned their lesson at all and there was not to be any proper distribution of industry and there would be no effort made to reverse the current drift of population from Scotland to the South, from the north-east of England to the South and, indeed, from all over England and Wales to the two great centres of London and the southeastern counties and the Midlands area. He was telling us that this would go on but it would be dealt with by planners in the future who would sort out the social problems.
It cannot be good for the country to allow these things to go on. It would surely be far better to keep some of the Scots who are adding to the homeless in London up in Scotland by letting them work in Scotland. We have heard about 45 per cent. of all the new jobs in Britain in recent years occurring in London and the South-East. Scotland happens to have one-third of the land area of this country and 10 per cent. of the population, but it has only had 2 per cent. of the additional jobs. This must be wrong. This is where the Government ought to start tackling the problem.
If the Government would ensure that industry was a little better spread and distributed, they would save the migra-

tion of 25,000 or 30,000 Scots coming to the South each year, and they would save a lot of people from the North-East coming South. There would always be some coming South, but, if the jobs were there, there would always be some travelling in the other direction, too.
We talk a lot about overspill in London and the problem of 200,000 people to be accommodated elsewhere. What is the sense of talking about over-spilling people out of London and out of Birmingham if, at the same time, the President of the Board of Trade gives his industrial development certificates to bring in more industry to those very areas. What is the sense of talking about overspilling population if the Government will not take any steps at all and will not even take power to stop the building up of the great commercial enterprises in London?
Some hon. Members opposite today asked for control of office building. When the Local Employment Act was going through, they had the opportunity to support us in seeking to give the Minister power to control office building in London or in any congested part of the country, but they declined the invitation to support us and now, when it is safe to criticise the Government and to vote in favour of giving the power, they can see the consequence, the result, of completely unplanned development of great commercial enterprises in London and other congested cities.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham) rose—

Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here during the whole of the debate.
We have a serious problem of overspill and of location of industry. In some of our cities, we are starting to build at far too great a density. Glasgow is now forced to build flats as high as 24 storeys. The Gorbals, which has been mentioned so often in our past debates in quite another connection, has a density which is greater than that of any other city in the country. There, I believe, there is a density of 165 persons to the acre. Admittedly, under the new schemes, it has been reduced from 400 persons to the acre. People want to live reasonably near their jobs and they want reasonable amenities. It is up to the


Government to ensure that people have jobs near to where they live- and that they get reasonable amenities.
We on this side of the House want employment to be spread sensibly throughout the country in order to prevent over-concentration of demand for housing in a small number of centres. We want a land commission to secure the proper use of our land at fair prices. We want more new towns and existing smaller towns expanded to take overspill from the congested centres of population. We want lower rates of interest of housing. We want preferential subsidies for slum clearance. We want a new drive greatly to increase the supply of new homes.
There is no evidence that the Government will adopt our proposals or do any of those things, and there is no evidence that they have any alternatives to offer. It is not a question of offering alternatives to us. It is a question of offering alternatives to the unhappy people we have the honour to represent. It is because of the failure of the Government that we on this side of the House will register our protest in the Lobby tonight.

9.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): This is not the first time that I have spoken immediately after the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), nor, I imagine, will it be the last. I have noticed this in common with all, or most, of the hon. Member's speeches. While I am listening to him, I am moved by what he is saying. Emotion comes into his voice. He supports emotion by figures, but he draws some very strange conclusions. When he sits down, and I try to think about what he has said, I cannot find much on which to bite. This was most noticeable in the concluding part of his speech tonight.
Towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he talked as if nothing whatsoever was happening in relation to the redistribution of industry. I must admit that it was interesting that he was almost the only hon. Member who referred directly to the last line of the Amendment, which reads:
…or to plan for the wise distribution of employment and population throughout the country.

As I say, the hon. Gentleman spoke as if nothing was happening. However, he cannot ignore the tremendous movement of industry into Scotland which has been going on over the last two or three years. I say—and I know exactly the reaction which will come from some hon. Members opposite when I say it—that there are 31,000 jobs in the pipeline. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members invariably react in that very strange way whenever the word "pipeline" is used. Is it possible that they are really not very pleased about it because it takes away a political attacking point? I have wondered that on many occasions.
If hon. Members opposite ask what the pipeline is, I would ask them to go along the Glasgow-Edinburgh road, past Bathgate, and see what was a green field fifteen months ago now producing some of the best motor vehicles that can be made in the United Kingdom. That is an example of the pipeline flowing. The 31,000 jobs will not, of course, appear overnight. The factories have to be built and tooled up. These jobs come into existence in stages. It is nonsense to talk as though nothing is happening. It does us no good in Scotland or the United Kingdom generally to talk as though nothing is happening.
The hon. Member also said that he had no intention of quoting figures to show what the Labour Party did when it was in power compared with what the Conservative Party is doing now. He considered that unnecessary, out-of-date, useless and a waste of time. I will not do it either, except to say that it comes a little odd from a party which said that the proposal to build 300,000 houses a year was dishonest election propaganda and something which could not be done, now to tell us that we ought to be building 450,000 houses a year. I expect that if we said we would build 450,000 a year, the Labour Party would say that it was dishonest propaganda, and yet, at the same time, that we ought to do better. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways.
The truth is that hon. Members opposite who were here while the Labour Government were in power know very well that any given moment only a proportion of the nation's resources can


be allocated to our different priorities. It was a deliberate act on the part of hon. Members opposite to hold down house building in 1950 and 1951. I am not saying that they were wrong to hold it to a figure which they believed was consistent with the allocation of resources between the country's essential needs, for that is a problem which any Government is up against. I am not saying they did it maliciously. Of course they did not. They did it because they were conscious of the fact that at any given moment we have to decide which of our priorities are most essential.

Mr. A. Woodburn: No one disputes the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, but has he forgotten the 5 million houses which were destroyed during the war and which we helped to replace? Also, why is he now repudiating all the silly speeches and comparisons which he was making in the past, which were quite ridiculous according to his new principle?

Mr. Maclay: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the text of speeches made in the past he will find that, so far from failing to do so, I always pointed to the problem of the immediate post-war years. The problem was the sort of system which the Labour Party was working—a tightly planned and detail-controlled system which was suppressing the effort which was available.
That is precisely what happened. The Conservative Party was able to build 300,000 houses a year and factories as well. We were able to build a great deal more than the Labour Party thought could be done on the basis of its calculations. I have no doubt that the reason was that we released locked-up energies and resources which hon. Members opposite had succeeded in locking up good and proper.
All this is relevant, because the debate has shown a difference of approach between the two sides of the House. A number of hon. Members have commented on this. Most of the speeches from this side have dwelt on the problems which we have to face, but the attitude has been that we shall solve them. Hon. Members opposite have

merely stated the problems; some of them have made detailed suggestions, but they have not tackled the big issues. It is most unfair to suggest, as one or two hon. Members have done, that the approach to this very grave human problem on this side of the House is a less sympathetic and understanding one than that from the other side.
My right hon. Friend made very clear the progress we have made in England and Wales, and I will give some of the figures for Scotland, because the hon. Member for Hamilton has been dealing with some Scottish points. I am glad that he did, because this is a United Kingdom debate. He referred, as have other hon. Members—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire anyway—-to the drop in actual and prospective housing output in Scotland in the public sector. The tendency was to blame the Government for just failing to do anything about it. It is true that decline in the building in the public sector in Scotland has existed for some years, and I have in the past given the reasons for it.

Mr. Willis: Inadequate reasons.

Mr. Maclay: Before I repeat them I must emphasise that in that period which I have been discussing Scottish local authorities have been free to build as required to meet approved needs in their districts and have, of course, constantly been urged by me to deploy their forces on the priority tasks, particularly slum clearance and urban renewal. There is no question of any obstacle having been placed by the Government in the way of catering for genuine needs. I repeat, therefore, that we must accept the existence of realistic and natural causes for the decline.
Permanent houses to the number of 429,000 have been built in Scotland since the end of the war, 313,000 of them by local authorities, about 48,000 by the Scottish Special Housing Association and 12,512—the figure now is—by new towns. Nearly one-third of the total of the population of Scotland is living in post-war houses. Really, it is not right to pretend that this is a very poor achievement. It is a very remarkable achievement considering that, at the same time, we have been fulfilling all our other obligations.
With the best will in the world, of course, we have reached a stage where progress must be slower. There are a lot of authorities with considerable needs who are now having to face the difficult task of slum clearance and renewal of urban centres, and comparisons with what was done in the days of rapid development of the open peripheral sites are just not relevant. Even the increasing use of multi-storey building—which hon. Members opposite will not quarrel about, I think—so often necessary to make the best use in density terms of precious central sites, often results in slower output.
I therefore do not by any means accept that current figures are evidence of a rundown in the provision of needed accommodation in Scotland which flows from central or local indifference to need. I think that there are perfectly natural explanations for it.
All the cities and some of the larger communities have turned their attention to slum clearance and urban renewal in its various forms, and a good many are encountering the natural delays which must come with this type of work. The revitalised central areas which will result will, I am sure, be worth a great deal of the thoughtful planning which goes into their remaking, and it really cannot be overrushed. Local authorities have every encouragement from me to press on with this important task.
Lastly, of course, I cannot fail to mention, when hon. Members are criticising our record in Scotland, the decision about the fourth new town. If I have time I may say a word about that later, because it links with the whole structure of the general planning of the development of Scotland, with which we are all so concerned.
The real problem in housing, as in so many other fields, is to achieve the best way of distributing the resources available to us, to make certain that they are directed where they are most needed. We have to achieve the best distribution of the resources among the different building agencies and among the different types of housing need. We have to see that public authorities and private enterprise play their proper part, for each has got its own job, and within that job I want the agency most qualified to get on with it.
In housing—and this is where I quarrel with hon. Members opposite who have spoken with emotion—there cannot be and ought not to be doctrinaire concentration on any one agency, or monopoly of building. We are not making the best use of our resources if local authorities build houses for those who are well able to look after themselves. In the White Papers which have been presented to Parliament, last Session by my right hon. Friend and this year by me, we have attempted to sketch out the housing problems which still remain and to indicate how they should be shared between the different agencies, the local authorities, other public authorities, housing associations, and ordinary private building.
I would say to hon. Members opposite —and mostly English Members raised the point—that if we swing too far to local authority building we shall have a gross distortion of building, which has caused so great a difficulty in Scotland, and that during a period when we are trying to steer new industries to Scot-land and when the varieties and types of houses needed in some areas are simply not available.
I shall not deal tonight with low rents, on which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) expressed some views, but he must realise that I have never attacked the tenants of local authority houses. I have said that there are many tenants whom I know from personal experience would be happier if they were paying realistic rents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly. Some of them do not like being subsidised at other people's expense. I have steadily urged local authorities all over Scotland to try to get their rents up to a more balanced level. This is not a doctrinaire approach. It is because, from years of experience as Secretary of State, I know that the incidence of unnaturally low rents has distorted our whole housing picture in Scotland, with very bad results for some of the things which all of us in the House want to do.
Some of my hon. Friends raised extremely interesting points about regional planning and urban development. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), in a very thoughtful speech, developed that point at some


length. He referred to the problems of land allocation, overspill and town development. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in opening the debate, these problems are at present under serious consideration in the Ministry in relation to the South-East and other major conurbations. My hon. Friend referred to migration figures and the growth of commercial employment. These things are, of course, known to us and they must be taken into account in any examination of the whole problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford also asked about the agency for overspill. The answer is very much the same in Scotland as in England. Shortly, it is that there are bound to be a number of different solutions which may well be right. As part of a comprehensive policy, both new towns and expanded towns of one kind or another may well have their place in the right circumstances. The recent decision to build another new town in Scotland and, in England, to build the new town of Skelmersdale shows that the possibility of further new towns has not been excluded.
Reference has also been made to the need to study planning problems over wide areas. As my right hon. Friend has said, the problems of individual planning authorities must obviously be fitted into a planning concept for wider areas. This is a responsibility which is accepted by the Government but, as he said, my right hon. Friend believes that a reasonable basis for individual plans should be arrived at by co-operation between the central Government and local government. There is already very close and continuous contact between the Departments and the local authorities.
This applies to England and it certainly applies to Scotland. As an example, I might point out that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, will shortly be meeting two or three local authorities together with the industrialists concerned in development in their areas, to try to bring together and co-ordinate planning for the next few years to meet the needs of all concerned. There is also the question

of the need for co-ordination of public and private efforts in urban redevelopment. It is clear that the redevelopment of town and city centres is, above all, a field in which public authority and private enterprise can fruitfully cooperate.
It is for the planning authority to draw up the plan for the redevelopment which it wishes to see, while private enterprise can in many instances be the most effective instrument for carrying it out. The ways in which this co-operation can take shape will have to vary in particular cases, and it would be difficult at this stage to comment on individual suggestions put forward from time to time. In general, however, the closest co-operation between the public and private sector in this field is something of which we are very much in favour.
I am sorry that I cannot go into too much detail on all the questions that have been asked. It is not a simple matter to wind up a rather mixed Anglo-Scottish debate, but there are still some points with which I intend to deal. The hon. Member for Hamilton made great play with some figures of European house building. He mentioned Sweden. Repeating what I said before, I say that we must consider carefully what are the other commitments of a certain nation, and how that nation is deploying its resources.
The hon. Member mentioned other countries. Does he know how much building they did in the years after the war, and on what scale their building has to be to catch up with the position Britain reached some years ago? It is true that those who were in France and Italy after the war, up to 1951, 1952 and 1953, saw on what a very small scale building was going on. They had to increase their figures remarkably to catch us up. These comparisons can be most misleading unless they are analysed very carefully right the way back to the war.
The hon. Member took the figures for only three years, and he took the years that are very difficult to relate. Certainly, I cannot relate them, without adequate notice, to what happened immediately after the war. We must treat these figures very carefully, and we must also study the different stages reached before we choose any particular


period. Finally, we must bear in mind the other commitments for which national resources are needed.
I want to pick up what I regard as the most important theme running through many of the speeches, especially those made by my hon. Friends. They asked whether long-term planning is working out, and whether new agencies are needed. Scotland provides a good example of the way in which the present agencies are combining to produce the desired results. During the last two years Scotland has benefited greatly by the measures taken by the Government to persuade big industrialists to locate their major expansion projects in Scotland. This applies not only to the motor car industry, but to a great many others.
The advent of these new firms will not only transform the local employment situation, but also it has made possible the movement of population on a big scale from the congested areas of Scotland to parts of the country where there is plenty of space for building, and where the prospects of other industrial development in the future are very good. This is just the kind of redistribution of population that the Amendment is calling for. AH that is made possible only by the co-operation of local authorities in building overspill houses, together with the direct Government contribution through the Scottish Special Housing Association. That is how it is working in Scotland.

Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reply of his right hon. Friend about the new town to be built in Shropshire is satisfactory? Will he also bear in mind that during my speech I never at any time attacked the Civil Service as a whole?

Mr. Maclay: I thought that the hon. Member was rising to a point in respect of which I ought to give way. He was on a different point. My good manners were mistaken on this occasion.
We have gone further than this general policy of trying to steer industry into the desired areas and to an extent have deliberately sited our new town in Scotland in an area which is not only physically suitable for building, but would also assist with the spread of industry and employment throughout a wider area. A few years ago it would have been diffi-

cult to believe that the shale mining area of the Lothians would shortly be one of the most important areas of industrial expansion. But this is now the case.
The choice of the Bathgate site by the British Motor Corporation was a vote of confidence—I say this deliberately—in the skill and adaptability of the people and of the local authorities in the area and this has already been justified. The local authorities have responded well to the need for houses for the workers from Glasgow to supplement the local labour resources and have given assurances that they will build as many as are needed.
I have made clear that I regard this new town—it is an example of the kind of thing for which hon. Members have been asking—as the centrepiece of a scheme of regional development which, with the co-operation of the local authorities, will improve the physical appearance of the countryside, parts of which have been much scarred by the activities of former industries. It will also attract industries with a big growth potential on which the prosperity of Scotland must increasingly depend. This is a co-operative effort between Government and local authorities, and ultimately industry. It has begun well, and I am certain that it will be one of our greatest and most important single factors in redressing the concentration of a far too large proportion of our population and industry in small areas in the country.
I have time to deal with only two more points. I am anxious to make absolutely clear the position regarding the planning which goes on under the present system without the addition of new bodies which were not defined during the debate and which are difficult to visualise. One or two hon. Members again raised the question of interest rates. Although our position is very well known I must again make absolutely clear that we consider that the rates of interest generally must reflect the economic situation and the monetary policy of the nation as a whole. We see no reason why local authorities should be exempt from economic trends reflected by rates of interest which they are called on to pay for housing or other services.
It is argued that housing should have an especially low rate of interest, but where is such a policy to stop? Is it to


be applied to water, or electricity, or to a number of other services which could equally qualify for a lower rate of interest? This is a question which comes up time and again and I think that hon. Members opposite do nobody any service by continuing to talk about it. They never define the point at which they would stop the application of this suggested specially low rate of interest, whether it should be confined to housing or be carried on to other services which must be equally involved.
Our policy is to have subsidies for housing which are quite open and not concealed and allow them to be debated, as they will be debated during our discussions on the coming Bill dealing with Scottish housing. Then the House

knows precisely who gets what and what are the arguments for getting it. Hon. Members opposite tend to confuse well-meaning people by talking about specially low rates of interest.

My right hon. Friend made clear that in the ten years since 1951 great progress has been made in England and Wales in the provision of housing, and I have made clear the same thing in relation to Scotland. I cannot see how hon. Members opposite can possibly justify going into the Division Lobby in favour of their Amendment.

Question put,That those words be there added:—

The House divided:Ayes 227, Noes 334.

Division No. 1.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.



Finch, Harold
King, Dr. Horace


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan
Lawson, George


Ainsley, William
Fletcher, Eric
Ledger, Ron


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Awbery, Stan
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Bence, Cyril
Gooch, E. G.
Logan, David


Benson, Sir George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Loughlin, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James


Blyton, William
Grey, Charles
McInnes, James


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Bowles, Frank
Gunter, Ray
McLeavy, Frank


Boyden, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mahon, Simon


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Manuel, A. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Denis
Mason, Roy


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mayhew, Christopher


Chapman, Donald
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mellish, R. J.


Chetwynd, George
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mendelson, J. J.


Cliffe, Michael
Hilt, J. (Midlothian)
Milne, Edward J.


Collick, Percy
Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Holman, Percy
Monslow, Walter


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holt, Arthur
Moody, A. S.


Cronin, John
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, John


Crosland, Anthony
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mort, D. L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hoy, James H.
Movie, Arthur


Darling, George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mulley, Frederick


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oram, A. E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Deer, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, Will


Delargy, Hugh
Janner, Sir Barnett
Padley, W. E.


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Diamond, John
Jeger, George
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pargiter, G. A.


Donnelly, Desmond
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paton, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Peart, Frederick


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Kelley, Richard
Popplewell, Ernest


Evans, Albert
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Fernyhough, E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, Arthur




Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, David


Randall, Harry
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Redhead, E. C.
Steele, Thomas
White, Mrs. Eirene


Reid, William
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Reynolds, G. W.
Stonehouse, John
Wigg, George


Rhodes, H.
Stones, William
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Willey, Frederick


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stross, Dr-Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Spain, Thomas
Williams. LI. (Abertillery)


Ross, William
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Short, Edward
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Winterbottom, R. E.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Timmons, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Skeffington, Arthur
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wyatt, Woodrow


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wade, Donald
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin



Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Warbey, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Snow, Julian
Watkins, Tudor
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Coulson, J. M.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Aitken, W. T.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Allason, James
Critchley, Julian
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hastings, Stephen


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Crowder, F. P.
Hay, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Cunningham, Knox
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Balniel, Lord
Curran, Charles
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward


Barber, Anthony
Currie, G. B. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Barlow, Sir John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hendry, Forbes


Barter, John
Danoe, James
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hiley, Joseph


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, F M. (Torquay)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cot &amp; Fhm)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Berkeley, Humphry
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Doughty, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bidgood, John C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hobson, John


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Edward
Holland, Philip


Bingham, R. M.
Duncan, Sir James
Hollingworth, John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Bishop, F. P.
Eden, John
Hopkins, Alan


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, R. P.


Bossom, Clive
Elliott, R,W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Bourne-Arton, A.
Emery, Peter
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Box, Donald
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Braine, Bernard
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Farr, John
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fell, Anthony
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Brooman-White, R.
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bryan, Paul
Foster, John
James, David


Bullard, Denys
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jennings, J. C.


Burden, F. A.
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Gammans, Lady
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Gardner, Edward
Joseph, Sir Keith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhart, Philip
Kershaw, Anthony


Chataway, Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gough, Frederick
Kirk, Peter


Churchill, Rt. Hon Sir Winston
Gower, Raymond
Kitson, Timothy


Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Lagden, Godfrey


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Lambton, Viscount


Cleaver, Leonard
Green, Alan
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Collard, Richard
Gresham Cooke, R.
Langford-Holt, J.


Cooke, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert
Leather, E. H. C.


Cooper, A. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Leavey, J. A.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gurden, Harold
Leburn, Gilmour


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col- J. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Corfield, F. V.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Lilley, F. J. P.


Costain, A. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lindsay, Martin







Linstead, Sir Hugh
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Litchfield, Capt. John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, J. A.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Longbottom, Charles
Partridge, E.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Longden, Gilbert
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Loveys, Walter H,
Peel, John
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Percival, Ian
Talbot, John E.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peyton, John
Tapsell, Peter


McAdden, Stephen
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


MacArthur, Ian
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


McLaren, Martin
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Pitman, Sir James
Teeling, William


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pitt, Miss Edith
Temple, John M.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Pott, Percivall
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson Kenneth (Walton)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Prior, J. M. L.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thorton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Francis
Turner, Colin


Maginnis, John E.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H,


Maitland, Sir John
Ramsden, James
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rawlinson, Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Marlowe, Anthony
Rees, Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Marshall, Douglas
Renton, David
Walder, David


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Walker, Peter


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Ward, Dame Irene


Mawby, Ray
Robertson, Sir D. (c'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Webster, David


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Stratton
Roots, William
Whitelaw, William


Montgomery, Fergus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
St. Clair, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Morgan, William
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morrison, John
Seymour, Leslie
Wise, A. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sharples, Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nabarro, Gerald
Shaw, M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Neave, Airey
Shepherd, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Woollam, John


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Noble, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Nugent, Sir Richard
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)



Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Speir, Rupert
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stanley, Hon. Richard

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS ETC.) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Maclay.]

SARAWAK AND NORTH BORNEO

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

10.13 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to have a debate on these two important but little known Territories in the Commonwealth, namely, Sarawak and North Borneo.
They have an important part to play in the Far East, and I am glad to say that they were able to send two distinguished members to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which met in London this year. My main object is to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to these Territories and to certain aspects in which I consider that Her Majesty's Government may be able to help in the immediate future.
In my opinion, there is a need for a Citizenship Bill in order that the inhabitants of these Territories may have a feeling of loyalty to their country, not just to their race, and I feel that it would be of infinite benefit to them to have such a Bill in the near future. It would be a particular asset to the Chinese immigrants and to the Indonesians now residing in these Territories if they could know what their position is and also what will happen to them as and when the elections take place.
Furthermore, I think that it is essential that more money should be granted for education. Article 26 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.
It is neither compulsory nor free in these Territories.
For example, in Sarawak only 42,481 Dyaks and Malays go to school in the elementary section. That is only 338 per cent. of the child population. Six thousand, seven hundred and forty-seven Chinese are in the same category, which is 80·3; per cent. of the child population. There are 7,929 Chinese and only 1,229 natives undergoing secondary education. We must be grateful to the many

Churches and mission which have helped with the building of the schools in both Territories and which run them very efficiently today. We must also be grateful to the Colombo Plan teams who help in secondary education and in training agricultural students in both Territories.
There is a great shortage of survey officers, which is holding up the opening up of land. I know that the owners of some land are willing to sell their land so that it can be further opened up by smallholders, but I understand that this is not possible at present because there is nobody to survey the land. There is also a shortage of agricultural officers to help with the many excellent rural development schemes, especially those of the smallholder type. In the medical services there is a shortage of doctors and physiotherapists and in Borneo, for some reason which perhaps my hon. Friend can explain, I understand that married women are not allowed to work as nurses.
The fact that 80 per cent. of Borneo is still a forest and that Sarawak has only about 705 miles of road point to the urgent need for help with the road programme. The Report of the South-East Asia Trade Delegation in 1961 said in regard to Borneo:
No overland communication between east and west coast is a major factor in retarding the progress of the country.
I have been along many of the roads now being built. They now have the Iban trekkers going ahead with a certain amount of equipment and people working behind them knocking down the trees. Then they make the rough jeep track afterwards before it is finally surfaced. This is far too slow progress. I understand that only about two miles a month are made. I suggest that my hon. Friend should recruit teams from Australia or Canada who have great experience in road making, as this is a very urgent problem at present.
Neither Territory has a department of social welfare. I recognise that excellent work is being done by voluntary organisations and particularly by the wives of expatriate officers, those serving in the Civil Service. However, in due course they will leave and there will be far fewer persons to do the work.


Further, training has been given to quite a number of people in social services—probation officers, women's officers, and so on. These are now working in separate departments and this is a waste of energy. It would be far better if they were co-ordinated in one department. I am not necessarily suggesting a large department of social service or social welfare, but I do suggest that the existing people should be co-ordinated and if possible given a little help. In the way they are being run at the moment they are certainly not being used to the best of their abilities.
In any mention of both these Territories one must recognise and praise the excellence of the Colonial Civil Service. Its members are extraordinarily good. The local people coming in and taking their positions as district officers are also performing good service for their country. Several are also being trained in this country at present.
I was very impressed by the calibre of the civil servants, quite a lot of whom served with the last Rajah in Sarawak or with the Borneo Company. Many have given a life's work to the Territory. A great many were prisoners of war under the Japanese and suffered great privation, but in spite of that they went back to the country and continued to help to rebuild it following the Japanese defeat. I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to say how much he appreciates their work; and that they may have no fear that their careers will end in the near future. While I was there this time some new cadets arrived from Great Britain, and they were, naturally, very anxious to know something about their future. I hope that they may be given some assurance tonight.
The Colonial Development Corporation is doing excellent work in both Territories, Borneo Abaca Ltd., and the Mostyn Estates (Cocoa), the Borneo Development Corporation, and also a housing development scheme.
I should like, if I may, to consider the histories of the Territories of Sarawak and Borneo. Sarawak was formed after a treaty made between the Sultan of Brunei and James Brooke, who afterwards became the first White Rajah, in

August, 1839. It was governed by him and the second and third Rajahs until the Japanese invasion in 1942. It had been made a British Protectorate in 1888, and seceded to the Crown in 1946.
The population now totals just over 744,000, and comprises, in order of numbers, Sea Dayaks—or Ibans— Chinese, Malays, Land Dayaks, indigenous peoples and Europeans. The Chinese are the most educated, are financially better off than the other races and are likely, in Sarawak, to form the largest race in future. In North Borneo there is a population of over 454,000, consisting of Dusans, Chinese, Bajau, Murats, and other indigenous races, and at present there are approximately 27,000 Indonesians.
Sarawak is mainly an agricultural country, its principal exports being rubber, timber and pepper. The pepper growers are very anxious that they should be able to establish their products in the United Kingdom.
The Government of Sarawak is run by the Council Negri, and has been since 1959. It is elected by indirect elections through divisional advisory councils from district and urban councils. I think that this has worked extraordinarily well, and I hope that the franchise may be enlarged in future. I understand that the ballot box was generally used for the first time in 1959, in the district council elections, which numbered over 300. and there was 75 per cent. voting, which shows that there is keenness to take part in the political activities of the country.
There are two registered political parties, the Sarawak United Party and P.A.N.A.S.—Party Negara. Up to date, 38 trade unions have been registered. According to the Annual Report, industrial disputes have been infrequent, and no stoppages occurred last year.
In Borneo, the British flag was first hoisted in Lebuan by H.M.S. "Iris", in 1846. This was followed by a treaty of friendship, and affairs were later run by the British North Borneo Company, whose activities dated from 1909 until, again, the Japanese occupied the Territory in 1942. Borneo became a Colony of the Crown in 1946. It has a Legislative Council, still nominated but it has an unofficial majority of five. There is also an Executive Council consisting of an equal


number of officers and unofficial members. There are five trade unions in this Territory.
I should particularly like to mention the facilities given in North Borneo to the Army from Malaya. The area of Kota Belut has been given up for the training of the Army there at some inconvenience to the inhabitants.
Exports from Borneo are very satisfactory since they are above their imports, but the picture is not the same for Sarawak, which is a poorer Territory. These two Territories have a considerable amount in common. They have the same currency, they use the same leprosorium, they share a mental hospital and they do a considerable amount of training of young people in the training colleges, particularly in the Tarat Agricultural College.
When one remembers the help given to many Territories which did not suffer from devastation and near-starvation, like these people, it is remarkable to see what tremendous progress has been made in rebuilding the cities and replanning the countries since 1946.
The people of both these Territories are happy, peaceful folk and they deserve a chance of better conditions and I hope that, as a result of this short debate tonight, my hon. Friend may be able to say that Her Majesty's Government are considering helping them to continue their progress.
The many civil servants who have spent their lives working there also deserve to know what their futures will be. I have had the opportunity of seeing these Territories on two occasions. I have been able to stay with the Sea Dayaks in their long houses, and I have visited the Malay campons. I have seen the Chinese at work, planting rubber, working the fields, engaged in their activities in the towns and managing their shop houses. I have had the opportunity of attending council meetings. I hope that tonight we shall hear that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the great work that has been done in the rebuilding of these Territories and will say that they have a happy future before them.

10.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): We have listened with great interest to the assess-

ment which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has made of the situation in Sarawak and North Borneo as she found it when she visited the Territories recently. It is clear proof of the value of these visits which have enabled my hon. Friend to come back full of ideas and questions and I will endeavour to answer some of those she put.
Regarding education, I agree that there is still much to be done and, in passing, I echo her tribute to the missionaries and Churches for the part that they have played. This problem—and it is a basic and vital one—is being tackled, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, vigorously in both Territories. Provision is being made for increased primary and secondary school facilities and the aim is universal free education for all. But that. of course, cannot be achieved overnight and we are limited by the resources available especially, as my hon. Friend will know, by the great shortage of suitably qualified teachers. At this moment, in the higher grades, there are six vacancies—a small number to us, but to them it is vital—and we are working hard to try to find replacements.
I believe that the Commonwealth Education Scheme will help. We hope that it will result in the Territories getting more teachers and that it will draw people from this country. The scheme tops up salaries and makes arrangements by which pension rights in Britain, when the teachers return, are safeguarded. This is an important new development which may be of considerable value to these Territories.
I have noted what my hon. Friend has had to say about the shortage of survey and agricultural officers and I can assure her that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to fill the vacancies. These officers are not easy to come by, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined— and my right hon. Friend is most anxious —that there should be no brake put on development by lack of qualified staff.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's views on the question of the introduction of a citizenship and nationality Bill. This is a very complex and difficult question, but it is one which I assure her has our immediate


attention. Indeed, we are at this moment giving it urgent consideration.
With my right hon. Friend's approval the Governor is going ahead with plans to introduce elections in North Borneo at local government level next year. Consultation with the Governor is proceeding about the possibility of a further constitutional advance.
My hon. Friend has suggested that there is need for national registration of all citizens in North Borneo, and this ties in with the other question that she asked. This, also, is being considered.
My hon. Friend mentioned the necessity for improved communications. This is a vital matter. I know that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) has visited these parts and knows the enormous difficulties of communication, especially inland, with a coastline cut by rivers. My hon. Friend put forward some most valuable ideas about speeding up the building of teams to deal with these problems, and I can assure her that this is under way.
We are taking steps to remedy these communications difficulties. About 26 per cent. of the total development expenditure in North Borneo is for roads, to provide a link between the east and west coasts. In Sarawak, an expenditure of over £3 million on road development is contemplated in the period between now and 1963. Of course, a road linking the two Territories would be most desirable, but it would be idle to pretend that this can be given the first priority. It would be an immense task, and I think that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Wakefield would agree that there are more immediate targets which have to be achieved. As my hon. Friend said, it is important to build up these road teams, and survey investigations are being carried out now so that the speed of construction can be greatly accelerated.
My hon. Friend referred to help which has been given by the Commonwealth, and I would pay a special tribute to the help which has been given by both Australia and New Zealand in the provision of people—I do not like the word"personnel"—to help in education, road making and agriculture. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that their

help has been invaluable in these two Territories.
I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend has said about the devoted and splendid service which the expatriate officers have given to these two Territories. They have served through a variety of regimes. They have suffered. They have been imprisoned and they have come through with flying colours to gain our respect and the respect of all whom they have so notably served. I am glad to say that the Governments of both Territories have now accepted the Overseas Service Aid Scheme, which will ensure that the interests of these officers will be safeguarded. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has many friends in the area, will always keep the Colonial Office informed of any sense of grievance or difficulties which her friends there may have, or feel that they are experiencing.
Much has been said by my hon. Friend, rightly, of the need to speed up development. She also said that there should be much greater aid than we have been able to give these Territories. Unfortunately, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, this is a proper claim by the friends which the many Territories of our great Commonwealth have in this House. The Colonial Office is, naturally, forced to balance priorities, and also the amount of money available from the Exchequer.
I want to say a word about what we have succeeded in doing. A great deal is being done. It is not the ideal, but within our resources it is more than a fair contribution. One important aim— and a basic aim—is to diversify the economy and correct an excessive dependence on one main industry, namely, rubber.
North Borneo's current development plan covers the period 1960–64 and provides for the expenditure of more than £6½million, towards which Her Majesty's Government will contribute over £3 million. In addition, the Electricity Board and the Rubber Fund Board expect to incur just under £1 million in capital expenditure. About 38 per cent. of the development expenditure will be devoted to communications, 17 per cent. to other economic projects, 14 per cent. to social services, and the remainder to administrative and miscellaneous projects. My hon. Friend urged


that there is a need for the establishment of a social services department for the two Territories. This is something which must be considered, but I feel that it is best for the present to rely on the existing facilities for co-ordination.
Turning to Sarawak, the current development plan provides for an expenditure of more than £17¼ million over the period 1959–63. Of this total nearly £3¾million will be contributed by Her Majesty's Government from colonial development and welfare funds. More than 34 per cent. of the expenditure will be devoted to development of communications, particularly roads, nearly a quarter will be devoted to agriculture and forestry projects, and more than 27 per cent. to social services.
A large part of the expenditure on agriculture is for planting high yielding rubber, and is partly financed by a rubber cess of two cents per lb. Great importance is attached to developing the rural areas to reduce the present disparity in development between them and the towns.
These, in a few words, are some of our immediate objectives. During the past few years it has been possible to move ahead with development in the territories. Her Majesty's Government's aid to Sarawak and North Borneo for economic development and welfare is currently running at about £1 million a year. Since 1946—to go back through the regimes of both ourselves and our predecessors—nearly £12 million has

gone in these forms to these two territories. In addition, my hon. Friend referred to the work of the C.D.C. in North Borneo. I agree that this is work which is highly effective, and deserves all the praise that my hon. Friend gave to this development.
Finally, it is appropriate for me to make some reference to Tunku Abdul Rahman's proposals for a Greater Malaysia. As announced on 13th October, the Tunku has accepted the invitation from the Prime Minister to come to London this month for exploratory talks about these constructive proposals, which Her Majesty's Government have welcomed.
As announced, the object of the discussions is to reach an understanding with Tunku Abdul Rahman on the broad issues and to prepare the way for consultation with the Borneo territories, without which no commitment can be entered into.
I have dealt to the best of my ability with the points which my hon. Friend has raised. As to the points which I have failed to answer, I shall, in the course of perusing her speech, go into them more deeply and correspond with her about them. I thank my hon. Friend, on behalf of the House, for having raised this interesting topic.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.